1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑7Kuinöl, in loc.↑8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑9Lücke, in loc.↑10Lightfoot, in loc.↑11Probabil. ut sup.↑12Vol. II. § 62.↑13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑16Vol. II. § 89.↑17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑18Olshausen, ut sup.↑19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑29Schmidt, ut sup.↑30Hase.↑31Paulus.↑32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑74Olshausen, ut sup.↑75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑85Vol. II. § 83.↑86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑95See De Wette, in loc.↑96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑105Vol. II. § 81.↑106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑7Kuinöl, in loc.↑8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑9Lücke, in loc.↑10Lightfoot, in loc.↑11Probabil. ut sup.↑12Vol. II. § 62.↑13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑16Vol. II. § 89.↑17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑18Olshausen, ut sup.↑19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑29Schmidt, ut sup.↑30Hase.↑31Paulus.↑32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑74Olshausen, ut sup.↑75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑85Vol. II. § 83.↑86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑95See De Wette, in loc.↑96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑105Vol. II. § 81.↑106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑7Kuinöl, in loc.↑8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑9Lücke, in loc.↑10Lightfoot, in loc.↑11Probabil. ut sup.↑12Vol. II. § 62.↑13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑16Vol. II. § 89.↑17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑18Olshausen, ut sup.↑19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑29Schmidt, ut sup.↑30Hase.↑31Paulus.↑32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑74Olshausen, ut sup.↑75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑85Vol. II. § 83.↑86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑95See De Wette, in loc.↑96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑105Vol. II. § 81.↑106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑7Kuinöl, in loc.↑8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑9Lücke, in loc.↑10Lightfoot, in loc.↑11Probabil. ut sup.↑12Vol. II. § 62.↑13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑16Vol. II. § 89.↑17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑18Olshausen, ut sup.↑19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑29Schmidt, ut sup.↑30Hase.↑31Paulus.↑32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑74Olshausen, ut sup.↑75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑85Vol. II. § 83.↑86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑95See De Wette, in loc.↑96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑105Vol. II. § 81.↑106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑7Kuinöl, in loc.↑8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑9Lücke, in loc.↑10Lightfoot, in loc.↑11Probabil. ut sup.↑12Vol. II. § 62.↑13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑16Vol. II. § 89.↑17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑18Olshausen, ut sup.↑19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑29Schmidt, ut sup.↑30Hase.↑31Paulus.↑32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑74Olshausen, ut sup.↑75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑85Vol. II. § 83.↑86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑95See De Wette, in loc.↑96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑105Vol. II. § 81.↑106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑
1Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.↑
2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑
2Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159, 2, s. 402.↑
3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑
3Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 215.↑
4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑
4For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407 ff.↑
5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑
5As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.↑
6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑
6Hug, ut sup. s. 221.↑
7Kuinöl, in loc.↑
7Kuinöl, in loc.↑
8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑
8Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.↑
9Lücke, in loc.↑
9Lücke, in loc.↑
10Lightfoot, in loc.↑
10Lightfoot, in loc.↑
11Probabil. ut sup.↑
11Probabil. ut sup.↑
12Vol. II. § 62.↑
12Vol. II. § 62.↑
13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑
13Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage,Gen. xlix. 17,Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”↑
14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑
14That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.↑
15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑
15Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.↑
16Vol. II. § 89.↑
16Vol. II. § 89.↑
17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑
17See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.↑
18Olshausen, ut sup.↑
18Olshausen, ut sup.↑
19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑
19Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s. 387, 388.↑
20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑
20Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.↑
21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑
21Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.↑
22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑
22Comp. Probabil., p. 139.↑
23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑
23Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the apocryphalEvangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p. 197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.↑
24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑
24Iren. adv. hær. I. 35:Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt.Epiphan. xxxviii. 3:Some Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked manπονηρὸν,who meant to destroy the good law:ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.↑
25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑
25Theophylact, inMatth. xxvii. 4.↑
26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑
26Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar representation in his Messias.↑
27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑
27K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18 ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.↑
28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑
28Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.; Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.↑
29Schmidt, ut sup.↑
29Schmidt, ut sup.↑
30Hase.↑
30Hase.↑
31Paulus.↑
31Paulus.↑
32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑
32Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.↑
33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
33Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑
34[The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three shillings.Tr.]↑
35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑
35Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.↑
36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑
36Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.↑
37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑
37L. J. Chr., s. 573.↑
38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑
38Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.↑
39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑
39Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust. theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.↑
40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑
40Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.↑
41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑
41Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.↑
42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑
42Beza, inMatth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus represents the object of this prediction:ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.↑
43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑
43Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette, in loc.↑
44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑
44Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.↑
45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
45Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑
46Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.↑
47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑
47An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by Lightfoot, p. 482 f.↑
48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑
48Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron. Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.↑
49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑
49See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.↑
50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑
50Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst. intell., p. 22, not. 1.↑
51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑
51See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.↑
52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑
52Antiq. II. xiv. 16.↑
53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑
53Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.↑
54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑
54Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.↑
55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑
55Calvin, inMatth. xxvi. 17.↑
56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑
56Grotius, inMatth. xxvi. 18.↑
57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑
57Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.↑
58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑
58Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.↑
59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑
59Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.↑
60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
60Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑
61Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and Lücke, ut sup.↑
62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑
62Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654:Paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima.On the other hand, Tosaphoth ad tr. Pesachin 8:In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio.Comp. Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 9.↑
63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑
63Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.↑
64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑
64Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.↑
65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑
65Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.↑
66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑
66Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w., TübingerZeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.↑
67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑
67Ut sup. s. 167 ff.↑
68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑
68Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.↑
69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑
69Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.↑
70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑
70Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.↑
71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑
71Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 446 f. Anm.↑
72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑
72Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.↑
73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑
73Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.↑
74Olshausen, ut sup.↑
74Olshausen, ut sup.↑
75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑
75Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.↑
76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑
76Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.↑
77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑
77Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.↑
78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑
78Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.↑
79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑
79L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.↑
80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑
80Sieffert, s. 152 ff.↑
81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑
81Comp. Lücke, s. 468.↑
82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑
82Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 12.↑
83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
83Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.↑
84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑
84Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.↑
85Vol. II. § 83.↑
85Vol. II. § 83.↑
86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑
86The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.↑
87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
87Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑
88Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.↑
89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑
89Olshausen, 2, s. 380.↑
90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑
90Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.↑
91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑
91Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.↑
92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑
92This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see Sieffert, s. 148. f.↑
93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑
93Ut sup. s. 147 ff.↑
94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑
94Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.↑
95See De Wette, in loc.↑
95See De Wette, in loc.↑
96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑
96Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.↑
97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑
97P. 62:reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.↑
98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑
98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L. J., § 137.↑
99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑
99Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.↑
100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑
100Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff., and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.↑
101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑
101Süskind, in the treatise:Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet?in hisMagazin 11, s. 1 ff.↑
102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑
102Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.↑
103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑
103Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.↑
104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑
104Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s. 61.↑
105Vol. II. § 81.↑
105Vol. II. § 81.↑
106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑
106Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.↑