Chapter 64

1Dial. c. Tryph. 8, s. 110. der Mauriner Ausg.↑2Hess. Geschichte Jesu, 1 Bd. s. 118.↑3Paulus, ut sup., s. 362 ff. 337. Hase, L. J., s. 48, erste Ausg.↑4Hieron. adv. Pelagian. iii. 2: In Evangelio juxta Hebræos—narrat historia:Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum; eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis: quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi, ignorantia est.↑5The author of theTractatus de non iterando baptismoin Cyprian’s works, Rigalt., p. 139, says (the passage is also found in Fabric. Cod. apocr. N.T., s. 799 f.):Est—liber, qui inscribitur Pauli prædicatio. In quo libro, contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma pæne invitum â matre suâ Mariâ esse compulsum.↑6Justin. Mart. dial. c. Tryph. 88:κατελθόντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ πῦρ ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνη, κ.τ.λ.. Epiphan. hæres. 30, 13 (after the heavenly voice):καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα.↑7SeeUsteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in thetheolog. Studien und Kritiken, 2 Bd. 3 Heft, s. 442 ff., and Bleek, in the same periodical, 1833, 2, s. 428 ff.↑8Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 s. 225 f. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Evang. Matt. i. s. 172 ff.↑9These are Theodore’s words, in Münter’s Fragmenta patr. græc. Fasc. 1, s. 142. Orig. c. Cels. i. 48. Basil. M. in Suicer’s Thesaurus, 2, p. 1479.↑10As even Lücke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i., s. 370, and Bleek, ut sup., s. 437.↑11Comp. Eusebius, H. E. vi. 29.↑12See Paulus, Bauer, Kuinöl, Hase and Theile.↑13De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 208. Anm. 6, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 34 f. 1, 3, s. 29 f. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 58 f. Usteri, Bleek, Hase, Kern, Neander.↑14According to Bava Mezia, f. lix. 1 (in Wetstein, p. 427), R. Elieser appealed to a heavenly sign, in proof that he had tradition in his favour:tum personuit echo cœlestis: quid vobis cum R. Eliesere? nam ubivis secundum illum obtinet traditio.↑15Dial. c. Tryph. 88.↑16Hæres. xxx. 13.↑17Pædagog. i. 6.↑18De consens. Evangg. ii. 14.↑19S. Wetstein in loc. des Lukas, and De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., s. 100.↑20S. Rosenmüller’s Schol. inPsalm ii.↑21Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 57.↑22Tibull. Carm. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See the remark of Broeckhuis on this passage; Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 70 f.; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 369.↑23Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 80.↑24Chagiga c. ii.:Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, sicut columba, quæ fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad Genes. 1, 2, ap. Schöttgen, horæ, i. p. 9.↑25Targum Koheleth, ii. 12,vox turturisis interpreted asvox spiritus sancti. To regard this, with Lücke, as an arbitrary interpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of the above data.↑26Bereschith rabba, s. 2, f. 4, 4, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. Schöttgen ut sup.):intelligitur spiritus regis Messiæ, de quo dicitur, Jes. xi. 2:et quiescet super illum spiritus Domini.↑27Sohar. Numer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 537 f.). The purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic conclusion: If David, according toPs. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of Noah’s dove, Gen. viii. 11, that it carried an olive leaf in its mouth; the Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.—Even Christian interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to the Noachian one; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2, Art.περιστερὰ, p. 688. It has been customary to cite in this connection, that the Samaritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of Achima, on Mount Gerizim; but this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction. See Stäudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. für K. G. 1, 3, s. 66. Lücke, 1, s. 367.↑28See Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 148.↑29Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 120.↑30Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 175 f.↑31Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, s. 378 f.↑32From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said, with Hoffmann (p. 301), that for the conviction of his messiahship and the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and adverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice Jesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite.↑33Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 14:ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βούλονται τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν ὄντως ανθρώπον εἶναι, Χριστὸν δὲ ὲν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς καταβεβηκότα, κ.τ.λ.:—They maintain that Jesus was really man, but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove became Christ in him.↑34Epiphan. hæres. xxviii. 1.↑35Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 13:—περιστερᾶς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτὸν:—of a dove descending and entering into him.↑36See the passage above, § 48, note 7.↑37Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evang., s. 39.↑38Comm. z. Ev. Joh. 1, s. 344.↑39Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 27.↑40Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, s. 23 De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 33.↑41Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., s. 379.↑42Lightfoot, horæ, p. 243.↑43Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kan. Evang., s. 46.↑44Ibid.↑45Thus Euthymius, Kuinöl, and others.↑46Fritzsche, in loc.↑47Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in Ullmann’s and Umbreit’s Studien, 1834, 4, s. 789.↑48Ueber den Lukas, s. 56.↑49Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 46 f.↑50Exegetische Beiträge, 1, s. 277 ff.↑51Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff.↑52In the Essay quoted, s. 768.↑53Thus, e.g., Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315.↑54Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829), drittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38.↑55De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 171. Gramberg, Grundzüge einer Engellehre des A. T., § 5, in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f.↑56Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg.↑57Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge. Kuinöl, in Matt.↑58In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr. Græc. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f.↑59Paulus.↑60Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation, designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature. But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations.↑61Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 124.↑62See the author of the discoursede jejunio et tentationibus Christi, among Cyprian’s works.↑63Compare Joseph. B. J. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 164. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 40.↑64The one proposed by Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 90; the other by Fritzsche, p. 168.↑65Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained against Julian that the devil had made the image of a mountain,φαντασίαν ὄρους τὸν διάβολον πεποιηκέναι, and according to[256]the author of the discourse, already cited,de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, the first temptation it is true passedlocaliter in deserto, but Jesus only went to the temple and the mountain as Ezekiel did from Chaboras to Jerusalem—that is,in spiritu.↑66Paulus, s. 379.↑67See for the former, H. Farmer, Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s. 217; for the latter, Olshausen in loc., and Hoffmann (s. 326 f.) if I rightly apprehend him.↑68Paulus, s. 377 ff.↑69Fritzsche, in Matth. 155 f. Usteri, Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, s. 774 f.↑70Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, 1, s. 56. Usteri, ut sup., s. 775.↑71Usteri, s. 776.↑721 Bd. s. 512 ff.↑73The former in Henke’s n. Magazin 4, 2, s. 352; the latter in the natürlichen Geschichte, 1, s. 591 ff.↑74This view is held by Ullmann, Hase, and Neander.↑75Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54. Usteri, ut sup., s. 777.↑76If something really experienced by Jesus is supposed as the germ of the parable, this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding.↑77J. E. C. Schmidt, in seiner Bibliothek, 1, 1, s. 60 f. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54 f. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in den theol. Studien, 2, 3, s. 456 ff.↑78K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, s. 339.↑79Hasert, Bemerkungen über die Ansichten Ullmann’s und Usteri’s von der Versuchungsgesch., Studien, 3, 1, s. 74 f.↑80Hasert, ut sup., s. 76.↑81Zur Biographie Jesu, § 23.↑82SeeZech. iii. 1, where Satan resists the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord; farther Vajikra rabba, f. cli. 1 (in Bertholdt, Christol. Jud., p. 183), where, according to Rabbi Jochanan, Jehovah said to‏מלאך המות‎(i.e. to Satan, comp.Heb. ii. 14and Lightfoot, horæ, p. 1088):Feci quidem teκοσμοκράτορα, at vero cum populo fœderis negotium nulla in re tibi est.↑83See the passages quoted by Fabricius in Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 395, from Gemara Sanhedrin.↑84The same, p. 396. As Abraham went out to sacrifice his son in obedience to Jehovah,antevertit eum Satanas in via, et tali colloquio cum ipso habito a proposito avertere eum conatus est, etc. Schemoth, R. 41 (ap. Wetstein in loc. Matth.):Cum Moses in altum adscenderet, dixit Israëli: post dies XL hora sexta redibo. Cum autem XL illi dies elapsi essent, venit Satanas, et turbavit mundum, dixitque: ubi est Moses, magister vester? mortuus est.It is worthy of remark that here also the temptation takes place after the lapse of 40 days.↑85Thus Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 173. His very title is striking, p. 154:Quod in vulgari Judæorum opinione erat, fore, ut Satanas salutaribus Messiæ consiliis omni modo, sed sine effectu tamen, nocere studeret, id ipsum Jesu Messiæ accidit. Nam quum is ad exemplum illustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in deserto loco egisset jejunium, Satanas eum convenit, protervisque atque impiis— —consiliis ad impietatem deducere frustra conatus est.↑86Schöttgen, horæ, ii. 538, adduces from Fini Flagellum Judæorum, iii. 35, a passage of Pesikta:Ait Satan: Domine, permitte me tentare Messiam et ejus generationem? Cui inquit Deus: Non haberes ullam adversus eum potestatem. Satanas iterum ait: Sine me, quia potestatem habeo. Respondit Deus: Si in hoc diutius perseverabis, Satan, potius (te) de mundo perdam quam aliquam animam generationis Messiæ perdi permittam.This passage at least proves that a temptation of the Messiah undertaken by the devil, was not foreign to the circle of Jewish ideas. Although the author of the above quotation represents the demand of Satan to have been denied, others, so soon as the imagination was once excited, would be sure to allow its completion.↑87Deut. viii. 2(LXX.) the people are thus addressed:μνησθήσῃ πᾶσαν τὴν ὁδὸν, ἥν ἤγαγέ σε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου τοῦτο τεσσαρακοστὸν ἔτος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὅπως κακώσῃ σε καὶ πεῖρασῃ σε καὶ διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, εἰ φυλάξῃ τὰς ἐντολάς αὐτοῦἢοὔ.↑88Ziegler, in Gabler’s n. theol. Journ., 5, 201; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 23.↑89See Wetstein, s. 270; De Wette, Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s. 245; the same in Daub’s and Creuzer’s Studien, 3, s. 245; v. Bohlen, Genesis, s. 63 f.↑90Deut. viii. 3,καὶ ἐκάκωσέ σε καὶ ἐλιμανχόνησε σε, κ.τ.λ.↑91S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 398 ff.↑92Gemara Sanh., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and Satan is thus continued:1.Satanas: Annon tentare te (Deum) in tali re ægre feras? Ecce erudiebas multos—labantem erigebant verba tua—quum nunc advenit ad te (Deus taliter te tentans) nonne ægre ferres(Job iv. 2–5)?Cui resp. Abraham: Ego in integritate mea ambulo(Ps. xxvi. 11).2.Satanas: Annon timor tuus, spes tua(Job iv. 6)?Abraham: Recordare quæso, quis est insons, qui perierit(v. 7)?3.Quare, quum videret Satanas, se nihil proficere, nec Abrahamum sibi obedire, dixit ad illum: et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est(v. 12),audivi—pecus futurum esse pro holocausto(Gen. xxii. 7),non autem Isaacum.Cui resp. Abraham: Hæc est pæna mendacis, ut etiam cum vera loquitur, fides ei non habeatur.I am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of our history of the temptation; but since it is impossible to prove, on the other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New Testament ones, the supposed independent formation of stories so similar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the given premises.↑93Note 1.↑94Bertholdt, Christolog. Judæorum Jesu ætate, § 36, not. 1 and 2; Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 169 f.↑95Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt, Fritzsche, and Usteri, as given § 54, notes 1–3, and of De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, 1, 1, s. 41 ff.↑

1Dial. c. Tryph. 8, s. 110. der Mauriner Ausg.↑

2Hess. Geschichte Jesu, 1 Bd. s. 118.↑

3Paulus, ut sup., s. 362 ff. 337. Hase, L. J., s. 48, erste Ausg.↑

4Hieron. adv. Pelagian. iii. 2: In Evangelio juxta Hebræos—narrat historia:Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum; eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis: quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi, ignorantia est.↑

5The author of theTractatus de non iterando baptismoin Cyprian’s works, Rigalt., p. 139, says (the passage is also found in Fabric. Cod. apocr. N.T., s. 799 f.):Est—liber, qui inscribitur Pauli prædicatio. In quo libro, contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma pæne invitum â matre suâ Mariâ esse compulsum.↑

6Justin. Mart. dial. c. Tryph. 88:κατελθόντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ πῦρ ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνη, κ.τ.λ.. Epiphan. hæres. 30, 13 (after the heavenly voice):καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα.↑

7SeeUsteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in thetheolog. Studien und Kritiken, 2 Bd. 3 Heft, s. 442 ff., and Bleek, in the same periodical, 1833, 2, s. 428 ff.↑

8Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 s. 225 f. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Evang. Matt. i. s. 172 ff.↑

9These are Theodore’s words, in Münter’s Fragmenta patr. græc. Fasc. 1, s. 142. Orig. c. Cels. i. 48. Basil. M. in Suicer’s Thesaurus, 2, p. 1479.↑

10As even Lücke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i., s. 370, and Bleek, ut sup., s. 437.↑

11Comp. Eusebius, H. E. vi. 29.↑

12See Paulus, Bauer, Kuinöl, Hase and Theile.↑

13De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 208. Anm. 6, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 34 f. 1, 3, s. 29 f. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 58 f. Usteri, Bleek, Hase, Kern, Neander.↑

14According to Bava Mezia, f. lix. 1 (in Wetstein, p. 427), R. Elieser appealed to a heavenly sign, in proof that he had tradition in his favour:tum personuit echo cœlestis: quid vobis cum R. Eliesere? nam ubivis secundum illum obtinet traditio.↑

15Dial. c. Tryph. 88.↑

16Hæres. xxx. 13.↑

17Pædagog. i. 6.↑

18De consens. Evangg. ii. 14.↑

19S. Wetstein in loc. des Lukas, and De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., s. 100.↑

20S. Rosenmüller’s Schol. inPsalm ii.↑

21Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 57.↑

22Tibull. Carm. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See the remark of Broeckhuis on this passage; Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 70 f.; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 369.↑

23Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 80.↑

24Chagiga c. ii.:Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, sicut columba, quæ fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad Genes. 1, 2, ap. Schöttgen, horæ, i. p. 9.↑

25Targum Koheleth, ii. 12,vox turturisis interpreted asvox spiritus sancti. To regard this, with Lücke, as an arbitrary interpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of the above data.↑

26Bereschith rabba, s. 2, f. 4, 4, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. Schöttgen ut sup.):intelligitur spiritus regis Messiæ, de quo dicitur, Jes. xi. 2:et quiescet super illum spiritus Domini.↑

27Sohar. Numer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 537 f.). The purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic conclusion: If David, according toPs. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of Noah’s dove, Gen. viii. 11, that it carried an olive leaf in its mouth; the Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.—Even Christian interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to the Noachian one; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2, Art.περιστερὰ, p. 688. It has been customary to cite in this connection, that the Samaritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of Achima, on Mount Gerizim; but this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction. See Stäudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. für K. G. 1, 3, s. 66. Lücke, 1, s. 367.↑

28See Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 148.↑

29Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 120.↑

30Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 175 f.↑

31Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, s. 378 f.↑

32From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said, with Hoffmann (p. 301), that for the conviction of his messiahship and the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and adverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice Jesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite.↑

33Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 14:ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βούλονται τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν ὄντως ανθρώπον εἶναι, Χριστὸν δὲ ὲν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς καταβεβηκότα, κ.τ.λ.:—They maintain that Jesus was really man, but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove became Christ in him.↑

34Epiphan. hæres. xxviii. 1.↑

35Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 13:—περιστερᾶς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτὸν:—of a dove descending and entering into him.↑

36See the passage above, § 48, note 7.↑

37Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evang., s. 39.↑

38Comm. z. Ev. Joh. 1, s. 344.↑

39Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 27.↑

40Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, s. 23 De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 33.↑

41Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., s. 379.↑

42Lightfoot, horæ, p. 243.↑

43Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kan. Evang., s. 46.↑

44Ibid.↑

45Thus Euthymius, Kuinöl, and others.↑

46Fritzsche, in loc.↑

47Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in Ullmann’s and Umbreit’s Studien, 1834, 4, s. 789.↑

48Ueber den Lukas, s. 56.↑

49Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 46 f.↑

50Exegetische Beiträge, 1, s. 277 ff.↑

51Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff.↑

52In the Essay quoted, s. 768.↑

53Thus, e.g., Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315.↑

54Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829), drittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38.↑

55De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 171. Gramberg, Grundzüge einer Engellehre des A. T., § 5, in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f.↑

56Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg.↑

57Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge. Kuinöl, in Matt.↑

58In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr. Græc. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f.↑

59Paulus.↑

60Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation, designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature. But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations.↑

61Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 124.↑

62See the author of the discoursede jejunio et tentationibus Christi, among Cyprian’s works.↑

63Compare Joseph. B. J. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 164. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 40.↑

64The one proposed by Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 90; the other by Fritzsche, p. 168.↑

65Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained against Julian that the devil had made the image of a mountain,φαντασίαν ὄρους τὸν διάβολον πεποιηκέναι, and according to[256]the author of the discourse, already cited,de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, the first temptation it is true passedlocaliter in deserto, but Jesus only went to the temple and the mountain as Ezekiel did from Chaboras to Jerusalem—that is,in spiritu.↑

66Paulus, s. 379.↑

67See for the former, H. Farmer, Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s. 217; for the latter, Olshausen in loc., and Hoffmann (s. 326 f.) if I rightly apprehend him.↑

68Paulus, s. 377 ff.↑

69Fritzsche, in Matth. 155 f. Usteri, Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, s. 774 f.↑

70Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, 1, s. 56. Usteri, ut sup., s. 775.↑

71Usteri, s. 776.↑

721 Bd. s. 512 ff.↑

73The former in Henke’s n. Magazin 4, 2, s. 352; the latter in the natürlichen Geschichte, 1, s. 591 ff.↑

74This view is held by Ullmann, Hase, and Neander.↑

75Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54. Usteri, ut sup., s. 777.↑

76If something really experienced by Jesus is supposed as the germ of the parable, this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding.↑

77J. E. C. Schmidt, in seiner Bibliothek, 1, 1, s. 60 f. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54 f. Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in den theol. Studien, 2, 3, s. 456 ff.↑

78K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, s. 339.↑

79Hasert, Bemerkungen über die Ansichten Ullmann’s und Usteri’s von der Versuchungsgesch., Studien, 3, 1, s. 74 f.↑

80Hasert, ut sup., s. 76.↑

81Zur Biographie Jesu, § 23.↑

82SeeZech. iii. 1, where Satan resists the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord; farther Vajikra rabba, f. cli. 1 (in Bertholdt, Christol. Jud., p. 183), where, according to Rabbi Jochanan, Jehovah said to‏מלאך המות‎(i.e. to Satan, comp.Heb. ii. 14and Lightfoot, horæ, p. 1088):Feci quidem teκοσμοκράτορα, at vero cum populo fœderis negotium nulla in re tibi est.↑

83See the passages quoted by Fabricius in Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 395, from Gemara Sanhedrin.↑

84The same, p. 396. As Abraham went out to sacrifice his son in obedience to Jehovah,antevertit eum Satanas in via, et tali colloquio cum ipso habito a proposito avertere eum conatus est, etc. Schemoth, R. 41 (ap. Wetstein in loc. Matth.):Cum Moses in altum adscenderet, dixit Israëli: post dies XL hora sexta redibo. Cum autem XL illi dies elapsi essent, venit Satanas, et turbavit mundum, dixitque: ubi est Moses, magister vester? mortuus est.It is worthy of remark that here also the temptation takes place after the lapse of 40 days.↑

85Thus Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 173. His very title is striking, p. 154:Quod in vulgari Judæorum opinione erat, fore, ut Satanas salutaribus Messiæ consiliis omni modo, sed sine effectu tamen, nocere studeret, id ipsum Jesu Messiæ accidit. Nam quum is ad exemplum illustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in deserto loco egisset jejunium, Satanas eum convenit, protervisque atque impiis— —consiliis ad impietatem deducere frustra conatus est.↑

86Schöttgen, horæ, ii. 538, adduces from Fini Flagellum Judæorum, iii. 35, a passage of Pesikta:Ait Satan: Domine, permitte me tentare Messiam et ejus generationem? Cui inquit Deus: Non haberes ullam adversus eum potestatem. Satanas iterum ait: Sine me, quia potestatem habeo. Respondit Deus: Si in hoc diutius perseverabis, Satan, potius (te) de mundo perdam quam aliquam animam generationis Messiæ perdi permittam.This passage at least proves that a temptation of the Messiah undertaken by the devil, was not foreign to the circle of Jewish ideas. Although the author of the above quotation represents the demand of Satan to have been denied, others, so soon as the imagination was once excited, would be sure to allow its completion.↑

87Deut. viii. 2(LXX.) the people are thus addressed:μνησθήσῃ πᾶσαν τὴν ὁδὸν, ἥν ἤγαγέ σε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου τοῦτο τεσσαρακοστὸν ἔτος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὅπως κακώσῃ σε καὶ πεῖρασῃ σε καὶ διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, εἰ φυλάξῃ τὰς ἐντολάς αὐτοῦἢοὔ.↑

88Ziegler, in Gabler’s n. theol. Journ., 5, 201; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 23.↑

89See Wetstein, s. 270; De Wette, Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s. 245; the same in Daub’s and Creuzer’s Studien, 3, s. 245; v. Bohlen, Genesis, s. 63 f.↑

90Deut. viii. 3,καὶ ἐκάκωσέ σε καὶ ἐλιμανχόνησε σε, κ.τ.λ.↑

91S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 398 ff.↑

92Gemara Sanh., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and Satan is thus continued:1.Satanas: Annon tentare te (Deum) in tali re ægre feras? Ecce erudiebas multos—labantem erigebant verba tua—quum nunc advenit ad te (Deus taliter te tentans) nonne ægre ferres(Job iv. 2–5)?Cui resp. Abraham: Ego in integritate mea ambulo(Ps. xxvi. 11).2.Satanas: Annon timor tuus, spes tua(Job iv. 6)?Abraham: Recordare quæso, quis est insons, qui perierit(v. 7)?3.Quare, quum videret Satanas, se nihil proficere, nec Abrahamum sibi obedire, dixit ad illum: et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est(v. 12),audivi—pecus futurum esse pro holocausto(Gen. xxii. 7),non autem Isaacum.Cui resp. Abraham: Hæc est pæna mendacis, ut etiam cum vera loquitur, fides ei non habeatur.I am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of our history of the temptation; but since it is impossible to prove, on the other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New Testament ones, the supposed independent formation of stories so similar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the given premises.↑

92Gemara Sanh., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and Satan is thus continued:

1.Satanas: Annon tentare te (Deum) in tali re ægre feras? Ecce erudiebas multos—labantem erigebant verba tua—quum nunc advenit ad te (Deus taliter te tentans) nonne ægre ferres(Job iv. 2–5)?

Cui resp. Abraham: Ego in integritate mea ambulo(Ps. xxvi. 11).

2.Satanas: Annon timor tuus, spes tua(Job iv. 6)?

Abraham: Recordare quæso, quis est insons, qui perierit(v. 7)?

3.Quare, quum videret Satanas, se nihil proficere, nec Abrahamum sibi obedire, dixit ad illum: et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est(v. 12),audivi—pecus futurum esse pro holocausto(Gen. xxii. 7),non autem Isaacum.

Cui resp. Abraham: Hæc est pæna mendacis, ut etiam cum vera loquitur, fides ei non habeatur.

I am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of our history of the temptation; but since it is impossible to prove, on the other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New Testament ones, the supposed independent formation of stories so similar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the given premises.↑

93Note 1.↑

94Bertholdt, Christolog. Judæorum Jesu ætate, § 36, not. 1 and 2; Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 169 f.↑

95Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt, Fritzsche, and Usteri, as given § 54, notes 1–3, and of De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, 1, 1, s. 41 ff.↑

Back to Index Next