196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑199Olshausen, in loc.↑200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑202Homil. ii. 19.↑203Cap. x.↑204Ut sup. s. 129.↑205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑227Disc. 5.↑228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑2291, s. 276 f.↑230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑232Ut sup.↑233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑234S. 59 f. 79.↑235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑241Disc. 5.↑242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑261Hase, ut sup.↑262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑268Ut sup. s. 491.↑269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑199Olshausen, in loc.↑200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑202Homil. ii. 19.↑203Cap. x.↑204Ut sup. s. 129.↑205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑227Disc. 5.↑228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑2291, s. 276 f.↑230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑232Ut sup.↑233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑234S. 59 f. 79.↑235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑241Disc. 5.↑242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑261Hase, ut sup.↑262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑268Ut sup. s. 491.↑269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑199Olshausen, in loc.↑200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑202Homil. ii. 19.↑203Cap. x.↑204Ut sup. s. 129.↑205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑227Disc. 5.↑228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑2291, s. 276 f.↑230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑232Ut sup.↑233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑234S. 59 f. 79.↑235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑241Disc. 5.↑242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑261Hase, ut sup.↑262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑268Ut sup. s. 491.↑269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑199Olshausen, in loc.↑200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑202Homil. ii. 19.↑203Cap. x.↑204Ut sup. s. 129.↑205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑227Disc. 5.↑228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑2291, s. 276 f.↑230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑232Ut sup.↑233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑234S. 59 f. 79.↑235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑241Disc. 5.↑242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑261Hase, ut sup.↑262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑268Ut sup. s. 491.↑269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑199Olshausen, in loc.↑200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑202Homil. ii. 19.↑203Cap. x.↑204Ut sup. s. 129.↑205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑227Disc. 5.↑228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑2291, s. 276 f.↑230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑232Ut sup.↑233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑234S. 59 f. 79.↑235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑241Disc. 5.↑242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑261Hase, ut sup.↑262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑268Ut sup. s. 491.↑269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑
196Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.↑
197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑
197Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation:verba[N.B.Matthaei]:ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν,non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore[N.B.Luca]patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctoreMatthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.↑
198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑
198Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.↑
199Olshausen, in loc.↑
199Olshausen, in loc.↑
200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑
200Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.↑
201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑
201Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.↑
202Homil. ii. 19.↑
202Homil. ii. 19.↑
203Cap. x.↑
203Cap. x.↑
204Ut sup. s. 129.↑
204Ut sup. s. 129.↑
205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑
205Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.↑
206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑
206Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.↑
207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑
207Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.↑
208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑
208Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.↑
209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑
209Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.↑
210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑
210Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.↑
211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑
211Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.↑
212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑
212Venturini, 2, s. 293.↑
213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑
213Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.↑
214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑
214Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.↑
215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑
215Im the translation of the text in hisLeben Jesu, 2, b, s.46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,threesubsequent messages.↑
216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑
216Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.↑
217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑
217Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.↑
218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑
218Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.↑
219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑
219Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑
220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑
220Lücke, 2, s. 388.↑
221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑
221Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.↑
222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑
222Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.↑
223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑
223Flatt, s. 97 f.↑
224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑
224Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.↑
225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑
225Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.↑
226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑
226Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.↑
227Disc. 5.↑
227Disc. 5.↑
228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑
228Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.↑
2291, s. 276 f.↑
2291, s. 276 f.↑
230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑
230Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.↑
231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑
231Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.↑
232Ut sup.↑
232Ut sup.↑
233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑
233Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.↑
234S. 59 f. 79.↑
234S. 59 f. 79.↑
235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑
235Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.↑
236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑
236This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.↑
237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑
237This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in themouthof Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in hismind.↑
238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑
238Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.↑
239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑
239Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.↑
240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑
240Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.↑
241Disc. 5.↑
241Disc. 5.↑
242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑
242Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.↑
243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑
243Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.↑
244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑
244Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.↑
245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑
245Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.↑
246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑
246Whitby, Annot. in loc.↑
247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑
247Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.↑
248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑
248See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!↑
249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑
249Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.↑
250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑
250Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.↑
251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑
251Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.↑
252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑
252Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the[494]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.↑
253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑
253Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.↑
254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑
254Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.↑
255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑
255See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.↑
2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑
2561 Kings xvii. 23, LXX.καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ,Luke vii. 15:καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.↑
257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑
257Thus the author of theAbhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.↑
258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑
258Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.↑
259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑
259Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.↑
260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑
260Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.↑
261Hase, ut sup.↑
261Hase, ut sup.↑
262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑
262Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.↑
263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑
263Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly,as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc.,πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.↑
264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑
264Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.↑
265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑
265This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.↑
266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑
266Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.↑
267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑
267According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras,ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν,instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.↑
268Ut sup. s. 491.↑
268Ut sup. s. 491.↑
269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑
269Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑
270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑
270Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.↑
271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑
271The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.↑
272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑
272Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.↑
273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑
273See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.↑
274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑
274Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence,v. 51, (comp.vii. 37):and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.↑
275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑
275Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.↑
276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑
276Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.↑
277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑
277Homil. in Joann. 43.↑
278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑
278In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.↑
279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑
279Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.↑
280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑
280See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.↑
281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑
281Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.↑
282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑
282Lucian,Philopseudes, 13.↑
283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑
283Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.↑
284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑
284See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.↑
285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑
285Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.↑
286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑
286Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.↑
287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑
287Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.↑