1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑7Echa R. iii. 28.↑8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑35Winer, ut sup.↑36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑38Lücke, in loc.↑39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑48Vol. II. § 80.↑49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑64Michaelis, ut sup.↑65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑67Olshausen, s.506.↑68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑78De Wette, in loc.↑79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑81Michaelis, s. 117.↑82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑90Vol. II. § 74.↑91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑104Ut sup. s. 486.↑105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑112Vol. I. § 57.↑113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑160Ut sup. 56.↑161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑7Echa R. iii. 28.↑8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑35Winer, ut sup.↑36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑38Lücke, in loc.↑39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑48Vol. II. § 80.↑49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑64Michaelis, ut sup.↑65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑67Olshausen, s.506.↑68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑78De Wette, in loc.↑79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑81Michaelis, s. 117.↑82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑90Vol. II. § 74.↑91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑104Ut sup. s. 486.↑105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑112Vol. I. § 57.↑113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑160Ut sup. 56.↑161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑7Echa R. iii. 28.↑8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑35Winer, ut sup.↑36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑38Lücke, in loc.↑39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑48Vol. II. § 80.↑49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑64Michaelis, ut sup.↑65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑67Olshausen, s.506.↑68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑78De Wette, in loc.↑79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑81Michaelis, s. 117.↑82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑90Vol. II. § 74.↑91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑104Ut sup. s. 486.↑105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑112Vol. I. § 57.↑113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑160Ut sup. 56.↑161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑7Echa R. iii. 28.↑8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑35Winer, ut sup.↑36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑38Lücke, in loc.↑39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑48Vol. II. § 80.↑49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑64Michaelis, ut sup.↑65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑67Olshausen, s.506.↑68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑78De Wette, in loc.↑79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑81Michaelis, s. 117.↑82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑90Vol. II. § 74.↑91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑104Ut sup. s. 486.↑105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑112Vol. I. § 57.↑113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑160Ut sup. 56.↑161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑7Echa R. iii. 28.↑8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑35Winer, ut sup.↑36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑38Lücke, in loc.↑39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑48Vol. II. § 80.↑49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑64Michaelis, ut sup.↑65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑67Olshausen, s.506.↑68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑78De Wette, in loc.↑79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑81Michaelis, s. 117.↑82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑90Vol. II. § 74.↑91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑104Ut sup. s. 486.↑105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑112Vol. I. § 57.↑113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑160Ut sup. 56.↑161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑
1The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain:there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary courseἔκλειψις ἡλίου γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.↑
2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑
2Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 639 f.↑
3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑
3Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑
4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑
4Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.↑
5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑
5Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.↑
6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑
6Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.:Constat, occiso Cæsare in Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem.↑
7Echa R. iii. 28.↑
7Echa R. iii. 28.↑
8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑
8R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema:Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet, dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie.↑
9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑
9Succa, f. xxix. 1:Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt ut decet, etc.↑
10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑
10Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.↑
11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑
11Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.):In evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis corruisse.↑
12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑
12The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).↑
13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑
13Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 240.↑
14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑
14Georg. i. 463 ff.↑
15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑
15When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature, which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.↑
16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑
16Only such must be here thought of, and notsectatores Christi, as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this apocryphal book also, and as well in theἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου(Thilo, p. 810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.↑
17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑
17Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.↑
18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑
18Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.↑
19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑
19Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.↑
20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑
20Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this explanation a mythical one.↑
21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑
21Leben Jesu, § 148.↑
22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑
22Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.↑
23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑
23Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.↑
24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑
24Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.↑
25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑
25See the collection of passages relative to this subject in Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.↑
26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑
26See the passages collected by Wetstein.↑
27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑
27See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii. ff.↑
28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑
28The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.↑
29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑
29According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.↑
30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑
30Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.↑
31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑
31Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36:τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc.ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.↑
32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑
32Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.↑
33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑
33Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 318.↑
34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
34Comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
35Winer, ut sup.↑
35Winer, ut sup.↑
36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑
36Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc. and Tholuck ut sup.↑
37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
37Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.↑
38Lücke, in loc.↑
38Lücke, in loc.↑
39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑
39Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc. According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to1 John v. 6:οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.↑
40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑
40Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑
41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑
41Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.↑
42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑
42Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt, § 17, not. 12.↑
43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑
43Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑
44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑
44Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.↑
45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑
45Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.↑
46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑
46Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.↑
47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑
47Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.↑
48Vol. II. § 80.↑
48Vol. II. § 80.↑
49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑
49Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.↑
50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑
50Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.↑
51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑
51See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’sDuplik.↑
52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑
52Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.↑
53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑
53Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.↑
54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑
54Thus Tholuck, in loc.↑
55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑
55See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.↑
56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑
56Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former.↑
57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑
57Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.↑
58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑
58Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.↑
59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑
59Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.↑
60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑
60A confusion of theκῆποςgardennear to the place of execution, where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucifiedἐν τῷ κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθηin the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p. 580, ap. Thilo.↑
61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑
61Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν(the next day, that followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.↑
62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑
62The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.↑
63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑
63Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206; Olshausen 2, s. 506.↑
64Michaelis, ut sup.↑
64Michaelis, ut sup.↑
65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑
65Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment.↑
66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑
66Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.↑
67Olshausen, s.506.↑
67Olshausen, s.506.↑
68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑
68Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.↑
69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑
69Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.↑
70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑
70Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.↑
71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑
71Hase, L. J., § 145.↑
72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑
72Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 343 f.↑
73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑
73Comp. Theile, ut sup.↑
74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑
74Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.↑
75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑
75Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.↑
76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑
76Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.↑
77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑
77Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’sviertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff.On the other hand, Lessing’sDuplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.↑
78De Wette, in loc.↑
78De Wette, in loc.↑
79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑
79Michaelis, s. 150 ff.↑
80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑
80Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.↑
81Michaelis, s. 117.↑
81Michaelis, s. 117.↑
82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑
82Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.↑
83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑
83Paulus, in loc. Matth.↑
84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)“1.Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,ἔδραμεν.John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,ἔτρεχον.2.Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,παρακύψας.John v. 5: John looked in,παρακύψας.3.Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα.John v. 6,7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.4.Luke v. 12: Peter went home,ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν.John v. 10: Peter and John went home again,ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”
84I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)
85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑
85Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.↑
86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑
86Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241 ff.↑
87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑
87Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.↑
88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑
88On this subject comp. De Wette,exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245; Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.↑
89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑
89Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 61 ff.↑
90Vol. II. § 74.↑
90Vol. II. § 74.↑
91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑
91Concerning this sense ofἐπίστευσεν, and its not being contradicted byοὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ.(v. 9), see the correct view in Lücke, in loc.↑
92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑
92Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.↑
93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑
93As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d. N. T. 2, § 69.↑
94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑
94Orig. c. Cels. v. 52:ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.↑
95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑
95Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 779.↑
96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑
96Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.↑
97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑
97Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.↑
98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑
98Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.↑
99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑
99Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc.,Nemo—quispiam primi temporis Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels, etc.:Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose, quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.↑
100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑
100Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.↑
101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑
101In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.↑
102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑
102Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.↑
103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑
103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.↑
104Ut sup. s. 486.↑
104Ut sup. s. 486.↑
105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑
105Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von Steiner, s. 314.↑
106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑
106Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.↑
107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑
107Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17 f.↑
108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑
108Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.↑
109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑
109Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.↑
110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑
110This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321; Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑
111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑
111On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion thatεἶπενwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang. Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.↑
112Vol. I. § 57.↑
112Vol. I. § 57.↑
113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑
113The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.↑
114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑
114Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.↑
115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑
115Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.↑
116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑
116Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.:Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis(apparently in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T. s. 406 f.),ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus(on the inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were, comp. Michaelis, s. 122).Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.↑
117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑
117Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.↑
118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑
118As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.↑
119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑
119Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.↑
120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑
120Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.↑
121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑
121Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.; Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes Buch.↑
122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑
122That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882;Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without any intimation in the text.↑
123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑
123The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already (§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated question of Jesus:Lovest thou me?has reference, according to the ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸνκαὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπουἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις(v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter,signifying by what death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the wordsFollow me,v. 20and22(i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation, the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the words of Jesusex eventuby the narrator: they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth, for even the phrase,shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the author ofJohn xxi., whether the words were known to him as a declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter.↑
124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑
124Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.; Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp. also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.↑
125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑
125Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb.3, b. s. 866, 881. A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from Hug.↑
126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑
126Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.↑
127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑
127Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.↑
128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑
128Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.↑
129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑
129Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v.θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.↑
130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑
130Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.↑
131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑
131Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835. Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.↑
132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑
132Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.↑
133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑
133Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.↑
134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑
134Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.↑
135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑
135Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.↑
136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑
136Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.↑
137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑
137See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must regard as a failure.↑
138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑
138Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.↑
139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑
139Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.↑
140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑
140Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 240.↑
141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑
141Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.↑
142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑
142Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1:εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.↑
143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑
143The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of Jesus:καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν.After the resurrection, he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion, and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body(c. Cels. ii. 62).↑
144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑
144Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later, traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John, the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?↑
145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑
145Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors, not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave, and hence maintained:resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. 3, p. 542.↑
146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑
146Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.↑
147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑
147Joseph. vita, 75:πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν, εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν. καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν.And when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.For the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786; and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.↑
148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑
148Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung, Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.↑
149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑
149Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.↑
150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑
150Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the other hand Klaiber’sStudien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84 ff.↑
151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑
151Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.↑
152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑
152Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.↑
153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑
153Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.↑
154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑
154Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63:Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67:οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.; Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.↑
155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑
155Ut sup. 67:ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.↑
156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑
156Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften Fragment, s. 407.↑
157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑
157Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.:librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus estC. A. Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.↑
158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑
158Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55:τίς τοῦτο εἶδε(the pierced hands of Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection),γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον, ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃθελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.↑
159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑
159The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.↑
160Ut sup. 56.↑
160Ut sup. 56.↑
161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑
161Ullmann,Wassetztdie Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus?In hisStudien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus,exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.↑
162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑
162Spinoza, ut sup.:Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur.↑
163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑
163Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.↑
164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑
164Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2, 4, s. 545 ff.↑
165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑
165Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup. p. 13.↑
166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑
166In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.↑
167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑
167Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc. theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.↑
168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑
168Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.↑
169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑
169This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by Kaiser, ut sup.↑
170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑
170Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.↑
171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑
171Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.↑
172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑
172Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.↑
173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑
173May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.↑
174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑
174Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the 7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and subjective, but objective magical facts.↑