288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑290Ibid.↑291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑296Olshausen, s. 513.↑297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑303Olshausen, in loc.↑304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑318P. 42.↑319Tholuck, in loc.↑320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑323Olshausen, ut sup.↑324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑328Tholuck, in loc.↑329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑333Olshausen, in loc.↑334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑338Lücke, s. 407.↑339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑346L. J. § 128.↑347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑348Disc. 4.↑349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑352Maji Obs., ib.↑353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑290Ibid.↑291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑296Olshausen, s. 513.↑297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑303Olshausen, in loc.↑304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑318P. 42.↑319Tholuck, in loc.↑320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑323Olshausen, ut sup.↑324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑328Tholuck, in loc.↑329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑333Olshausen, in loc.↑334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑338Lücke, s. 407.↑339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑346L. J. § 128.↑347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑348Disc. 4.↑349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑352Maji Obs., ib.↑353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑290Ibid.↑291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑296Olshausen, s. 513.↑297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑303Olshausen, in loc.↑304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑318P. 42.↑319Tholuck, in loc.↑320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑323Olshausen, ut sup.↑324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑328Tholuck, in loc.↑329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑333Olshausen, in loc.↑334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑338Lücke, s. 407.↑339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑346L. J. § 128.↑347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑348Disc. 4.↑349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑352Maji Obs., ib.↑353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑290Ibid.↑291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑296Olshausen, s. 513.↑297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑303Olshausen, in loc.↑304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑318P. 42.↑319Tholuck, in loc.↑320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑323Olshausen, ut sup.↑324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑328Tholuck, in loc.↑329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑333Olshausen, in loc.↑334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑338Lücke, s. 407.↑339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑346L. J. § 128.↑347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑348Disc. 4.↑349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑352Maji Obs., ib.↑353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑290Ibid.↑291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑296Olshausen, s. 513.↑297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑303Olshausen, in loc.↑304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑318P. 42.↑319Tholuck, in loc.↑320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑323Olshausen, ut sup.↑324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑328Tholuck, in loc.↑329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑333Olshausen, in loc.↑334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑338Lücke, s. 407.↑339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑346L. J. § 128.↑347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑348Disc. 4.↑349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑352Maji Obs., ib.↑353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
288Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑
289Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words,We have taken no bread,Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.↑
290Ibid.↑
290Ibid.↑
291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑
291Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s.97.↑
292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑
292Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz,über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.↑
293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑
293Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.↑
294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑
294Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.↑
295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑
295Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.↑
296Olshausen, s. 513.↑
296Olshausen, s. 513.↑
297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑
297See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.↑
298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑
298Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.↑
299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑
299This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).↑
300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑
300Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.↑
301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑
301For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.↑
302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑
302Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.↑
303Olshausen, in loc.↑
303Olshausen, in loc.↑
304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑
304Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.↑
305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑
305This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds,How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus:πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.↑
306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑
306Vid. Vol. I. § 14.↑
3072 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.
307
2 Kings iv. 43, LXX.:τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν;John vi. 9:ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;Ibid. v. 44:καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.Matt. xiv. 20:καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.
308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑
308Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.↑
309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑
309Joma f. 39, 1:Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panesπροθέσεως,ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.↑
310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑
310Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.↑
311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑
311Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.↑
312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑
312Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)↑
313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑
313In Joann. tract. 8:Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.↑
314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑
314Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen:sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.↑
315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑
315Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.↑
316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑
316Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.↑
317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑
317Woolston, Disc. 4.↑
318P. 42.↑
318P. 42.↑
319Tholuck, in loc.↑
319Tholuck, in loc.↑
320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑
320Comm. 4, s. 151 f.↑
321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑
321Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.↑
322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑
322C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.↑
323Olshausen, ut sup.↑
323Olshausen, ut sup.↑
324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑
324Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.↑
325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑
325[AWirtembergwine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]↑
326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑
326Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.↑
327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑
327Homil. in Joann. in loc.↑
328Tholuck, in loc.↑
328Tholuck, in loc.↑
329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑
329This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).↑
330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑
330Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.↑
331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑
331E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.↑
332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑
332Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.↑
333Olshausen, in loc.↑
333Olshausen, in loc.↑
334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑
334Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.↑
335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑
335Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.↑
336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑
336Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.↑
337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑
337He makes the wordμεθύσκεσθαι,v. 10, refer to John also.↑
338Lücke, s. 407.↑
338Lücke, s. 407.↑
339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑
339Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.↑
340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑
340In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things:Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.↑
341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑
341A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.↑
342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑
342We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.↑
343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑
343Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.↑
344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑
344De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.↑
345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑
345Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.↑
346L. J. § 128.↑
346L. J. § 128.↑
347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑
347Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44:Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?↑
348Disc. 4.↑
348Disc. 4.↑
349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑
349Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29:Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?↑
350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑
350Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.↑
351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑
351Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.↑
352Maji Obs., ib.↑
352Maji Obs., ib.↑
353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑
353Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.↑
354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑
354Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑
355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑
355Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.↑
356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑
356As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.↑
357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑
357Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.↑
358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑
358Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.↑
359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑
359Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.↑
360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑
360Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.↑
361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑
361Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.↑
362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑
362Comm. in Matt. p. 637.↑
363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑
363Comm., in Marc. p. 481:Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.↑
364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑
364Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.↑
365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑
365Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.↑
366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑
366Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.↑