1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑5e.g. Grotius.↑6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑44Ibid., § 39.↑45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑65Hase, ut sup.↑66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑71Tholuck, in loc.↑72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑5e.g. Grotius.↑6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑44Ibid., § 39.↑45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑65Hase, ut sup.↑66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑71Tholuck, in loc.↑72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑5e.g. Grotius.↑6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑44Ibid., § 39.↑45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑65Hase, ut sup.↑66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑71Tholuck, in loc.↑72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑5e.g. Grotius.↑6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑44Ibid., § 39.↑45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑65Hase, ut sup.↑66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑71Tholuck, in loc.↑72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑5e.g. Grotius.↑6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑44Ibid., § 39.↑45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑65Hase, ut sup.↑66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑71Tholuck, in loc.↑72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑
1All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.↑
2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑
2Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320.↑
3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑
3Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s.265.↑
4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑
4Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.↑
5e.g. Grotius.↑
5e.g. Grotius.↑
6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑
6Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.↑
7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑
7Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.↑
8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑
8See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f.↑
9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑
9Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy,2 Sam. i.17 ff.asקֶשֶׁתand the denomination of the Messiah asצֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference ofυἰὸς τοῦ ἀ.to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)↑
10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑
10That the expressionοἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷincludes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.↑
11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑
11There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples:τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and Fritzsche,) give the expressionυἱὸς τ. ἀ.a general signification, and interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that theυἱὸς τ. ἀ.is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the expression,ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ.was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while to others it was merely the equivalent of,this man.↑
12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑
12Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.↑
13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑
13This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and Schneckenburger ut sup.↑
14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑
14Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.↑
15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑
15Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.↑
16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑
16Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.↑
17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑
17The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.↑
18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑
18Fritzsche, s. 309.↑
19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑
19Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.↑
20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑
20Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.↑
21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑
21Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.↑
22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑
22Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.↑
23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑
23Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.↑
24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑
24Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.↑
25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑
25Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.↑
26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑
26Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii. 4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.↑
27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑
27See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.↑
28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑
28Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 58.↑
29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑
29Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s. 244, note.↑
30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑
30Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.↑
31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑
31Targ. Jes. xvi 1:Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ Zionis.In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.↑
32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑
32Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.↑
33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑
33Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u. Exegese, 1, s. 38:משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56. Schöttgen, ii. s. 436:Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus conderetur), nimirum … et lumen Messiæ.Here we have the pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3 (Schöttgen).↑
34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑
34Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.↑
35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑
35Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.↑
36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑
36Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744, understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a different meaning.↑
37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑
37Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.↑
38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑
38Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.↑
39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑
39So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).↑
40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑
40Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310 f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.), though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance.↑
41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑
41Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.↑
42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑
42De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.↑
43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑
43Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.↑
44Ibid., § 39.↑
44Ibid., § 39.↑
45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑
45E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.↑
46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑
46For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius, hæres. xxx. 16.↑
47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑
47Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.↑
48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑
48This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.↑
49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑
49Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.↑
50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑
50Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.↑
51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑
51Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.↑
52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑
52Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.↑
53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑
53Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.↑
54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑
54Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.↑
55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑
55De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.↑
56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑
56Fritzsche, s. 214.↑
57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑
57Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.↑
58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑
58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296, 312.↑
59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑
59Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.↑
60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑
60Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.↑
61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑
61Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.↑
62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑
62Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.↑
63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑
63Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.↑
64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑
64Olshausen, 1, s. 507.↑
65Hase, ut sup.↑
65Hase, ut sup.↑
66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑
66Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.↑
67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑
67Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.↑
68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑
68Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in Lücke 1, s. 533.↑
69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑
69Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.↑
70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑
70Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.↑
71Tholuck, in loc.↑
71Tholuck, in loc.↑
72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑
72Lücke andTholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.↑
73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑
73E.g.Tholuck, in many passages.↑
74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑
74Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.↑
75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑
75Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.↑
76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑
76Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.↑
77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑
77Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.↑
78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑
78Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.↑
79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑
79Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.↑
80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑
80Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.↑
81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑
81Lightfoot, p. 1002.↑
82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑
82Lücke, 1, s. 542.↑
83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑
83Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52↑
84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑
84Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.↑