1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑11See Paulus, s. 294.↑12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑16Cludius, ut sup.↑17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑18Ut sup. p. 347.↑19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑45Gabler and Paulus.↑46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑51Lücke, ut sup.↑52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑53Probabilia, p. 41.↑54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑60Ut sup.↑61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑68Commentar, s. 380.↑69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑72Ibid. p. 106.↑73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑76Lücke, s. 339.↑77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑11See Paulus, s. 294.↑12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑16Cludius, ut sup.↑17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑18Ut sup. p. 347.↑19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑45Gabler and Paulus.↑46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑51Lücke, ut sup.↑52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑53Probabilia, p. 41.↑54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑60Ut sup.↑61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑68Commentar, s. 380.↑69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑72Ibid. p. 106.↑73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑76Lücke, s. 339.↑77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑11See Paulus, s. 294.↑12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑16Cludius, ut sup.↑17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑18Ut sup. p. 347.↑19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑45Gabler and Paulus.↑46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑51Lücke, ut sup.↑52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑53Probabilia, p. 41.↑54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑60Ut sup.↑61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑68Commentar, s. 380.↑69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑72Ibid. p. 106.↑73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑76Lücke, s. 339.↑77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑11See Paulus, s. 294.↑12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑16Cludius, ut sup.↑17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑18Ut sup. p. 347.↑19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑45Gabler and Paulus.↑46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑51Lücke, ut sup.↑52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑53Probabilia, p. 41.↑54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑60Ut sup.↑61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑68Commentar, s. 380.↑69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑72Ibid. p. 106.↑73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑76Lücke, s. 339.↑77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑11See Paulus, s. 294.↑12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑16Cludius, ut sup.↑17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑18Ut sup. p. 347.↑19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑45Gabler and Paulus.↑46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑51Lücke, ut sup.↑52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑53Probabilia, p. 41.↑54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑60Ut sup.↑61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑68Commentar, s. 380.↑69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑72Ibid. p. 106.↑73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑76Lücke, s. 339.↑77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑
1Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.↑
2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑
2Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff.Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.↑
3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑
3De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.↑
4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑
4See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.↑
5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑
5I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii. 1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.↑
6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑
6Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.↑
7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑
7Tholuckthinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D.17), mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the same historical conjecture, saysTholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.↑
8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑
8Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff.Tholuck, s. 201 ff.↑
9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑
9For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with Schneckenburger and others, the secondτετραρχοῦντος, is too evident violence.↑
10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑
10Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552: De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.↑
11See Paulus, s. 294.↑
11See Paulus, s. 294.↑
12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑
12See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.↑
13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑
13Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.↑
14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
14Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑
15So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.↑
16Cludius, ut sup.↑
16Cludius, ut sup.↑
17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑
17Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.↑
18Ut sup. p. 347.↑
18Ut sup. p. 347.↑
19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑
19Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.↑
20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑
20SeeWiner, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.↑
21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑
21Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.↑
22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑
22Winer, ut sup., s. 691.↑
23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑
23Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.↑
24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑
24Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.↑
25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑
25Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2:R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.↑
26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
26Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑
27Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.↑
28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑
28Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von Lessing, s. 133 ff.↑
29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑
29So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.; so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 691.↑
30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑
30Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.↑
31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑
31Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.↑
32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑
32Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart! s. 127.↑
33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑
33Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.↑
34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑
34Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.↑
35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑
35Hæres, xxx. 13:Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα· ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον.And when he came from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove, etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou, Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.↑
36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑
36Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.↑
37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑
37Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical remarks inMatt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.↑
38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑
38See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.↑
39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑
39Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.↑
40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑
40We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.↑
41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑
41Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.↑
42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑
42Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and evenFritzsche.↑
43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑
43This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.↑
44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑
44The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probablyv. 6 (Matt.)andv. 23 (Luke)came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. Theἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ.must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.↑
45Gabler and Paulus.↑
45Gabler and Paulus.↑
46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑
46De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh.1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.↑
47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑
47Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.↑
48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑
48De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.↑
49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑
49Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.↑
50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑
50Tholuckand Lücke, in loc.↑
51Lücke, ut sup.↑
51Lücke, ut sup.↑
52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑
52See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, § 23–25.↑
53Probabilia, p. 41.↑
53Probabilia, p. 41.↑
54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑
54See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.↑
55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑
55Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.↑
56Compare especially:Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑
56Compare especially:
Joh. iii. 11(Jesus to Nicodemus):ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε.Joh. iii. 32(the Baptist):καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.V. 18:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη κέκριται,ὅτι μὴπεπίστευκενεἰς το ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.V. 36:ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.
Comp. also the words of the Baptistv. 31, withJoh. iii. 6.12 f.viii. 23;v. 32withviii. 26;v. 33withvi. 27;v. 34withxii. 49,50;v. 35withv. 22,27,x. 28 f.xvii. 2.↑
57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑
57Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.↑
58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑
58Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.↑
59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑
59E.g. here,v. 32, it is said:τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει, but inthe Prolog. v. 11:καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. Comp. Lücke, s. 501.↑
60Ut sup.↑
60Ut sup.↑
61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑
61De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81; biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.↑
62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑
62Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus inActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos:ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of John, that by theερχόμενοςannounced by their master, they were to understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of Jesus.↑
63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑
63Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d. A. Zabier.↑
64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑
64Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De Wette, Opusc a. a. O.↑
65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑
65Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.↑
662 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
66
2 Sam. iii. 1.וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵקוּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :John iii. 30.ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק
וּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים :
ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.
ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑
67Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s. 693.↑
68Commentar, s. 380.↑
68Commentar, s. 380.↑
69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑
69The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According tov. 1 ff.there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus (Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth Evangelist on theμαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., s. 190 3teAusg.↑
70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
70Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑
71Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.↑
72Ibid. p. 106.↑
72Ibid. p. 106.↑
73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑
73Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.↑
74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑
74The expressionοἱ Ἰουδαῖοιis thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.↑
75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑
75Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.↑
76Lücke, s. 339.↑
76Lücke, s. 339.↑
77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑
77Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples (John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene,Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.↑
78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑
78That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist, because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.↑
79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑
79For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48 ff.↑
80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
80Antiq. xviii. v. 2.↑
81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑
81This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists, Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3; xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.↑
82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑
82Antiq. xviii. v. 4.↑
83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑
83Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.↑
84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑
84Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 694.↑
85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑
85Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 109.↑
86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑
86Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.↑
87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑
87E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That theἐλυπήθηofMatthew, v. 9, is not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.↑
88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑
88S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.↑
89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑
89Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.↑
90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑
90Antiq. xviii. v. 1.↑