1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑6Paulus, ut sup.↑7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑8Gnomon, in loc.↑9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑10S. 385.↑11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑12Ut sup.↑13P. 141.↑14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑31Sieffert, s. 60.↑32De Wette, ut sup.↑33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑37iii. i. 4.↑38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑41Ut sup., p. 77.↑42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑46Ut sup., s. 88.↑47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑67De Wette, ut sup.↑68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑6Paulus, ut sup.↑7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑8Gnomon, in loc.↑9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑10S. 385.↑11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑12Ut sup.↑13P. 141.↑14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑31Sieffert, s. 60.↑32De Wette, ut sup.↑33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑37iii. i. 4.↑38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑41Ut sup., p. 77.↑42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑46Ut sup., s. 88.↑47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑67De Wette, ut sup.↑68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑6Paulus, ut sup.↑7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑8Gnomon, in loc.↑9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑10S. 385.↑11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑12Ut sup.↑13P. 141.↑14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑31Sieffert, s. 60.↑32De Wette, ut sup.↑33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑37iii. i. 4.↑38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑41Ut sup., p. 77.↑42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑46Ut sup., s. 88.↑47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑67De Wette, ut sup.↑68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑6Paulus, ut sup.↑7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑8Gnomon, in loc.↑9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑10S. 385.↑11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑12Ut sup.↑13P. 141.↑14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑31Sieffert, s. 60.↑32De Wette, ut sup.↑33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑37iii. i. 4.↑38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑41Ut sup., p. 77.↑42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑46Ut sup., s. 88.↑47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑67De Wette, ut sup.↑68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑6Paulus, ut sup.↑7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑8Gnomon, in loc.↑9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑10S. 385.↑11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑12Ut sup.↑13P. 141.↑14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑31Sieffert, s. 60.↑32De Wette, ut sup.↑33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑37iii. i. 4.↑38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑41Ut sup., p. 77.↑42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑46Ut sup., s. 88.↑47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑67De Wette, ut sup.↑68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑
1Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.↑
2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑
2Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.↑
3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑
3Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 72.↑
4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑
4See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.↑
5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑
5Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.↑
6Paulus, ut sup.↑
6Paulus, ut sup.↑
7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑
7Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.↑
8Gnomon, in loc.↑
8Gnomon, in loc.↑
9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑
9Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.↑
10S. 385.↑
10S. 385.↑
11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑
11Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.↑
12Ut sup.↑
12Ut sup.↑
13P. 141.↑
13P. 141.↑
14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑
14Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.↑
15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑
15Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.↑
16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑
16Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.↑
17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑
17Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.↑
18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑
18This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.↑
19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑
19Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.↑
20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑
20Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.↑
21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑
21Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now in theCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.↑
22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑
22According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry.↑
23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑
23Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P. no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend.↑
24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑
24Luke v. 5:δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼Î»Î¬Î²Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½.John xxi. 3:καὶ á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ƒ τῇ νυκτὶ á¼Ï€Î¯Î±ÏƒÎ±Î½ ουδÎν.↑
25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑
25Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.↑
26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑
26Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.↑
27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑
27Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.↑
28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑
28Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑
29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑
29Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.↑
30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑
30Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.↑
31Sieffert, s. 60.↑
31Sieffert, s. 60.↑
32De Wette, ut sup.↑
32De Wette, ut sup.↑
33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑
33Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.↑
34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑
34Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.↑
35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑
35Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.↑
36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑
36Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.↑
37iii. i. 4.↑
37iii. i. 4.↑
38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑
38Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.↑
39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑
39Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.↑
40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑
40Comp.de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.↑
41Ut sup., p. 77.↑
41Ut sup., p. 77.↑
42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑
42De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.↑
43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑
43Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.↑
44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑
44Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑
45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑
45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.↑
46Ut sup., s. 88.↑
46Ut sup., s. 88.↑
47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑
47Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13.↑
48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑
48Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.↑
49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑
49Ifἡ πόλις ἈνδÏÎου καὶ Î ÎÏ„Ïου,John i. 45, mean the same asἡ ἰδία πόλις,Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists.↑
50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑
50Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.↑
51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑
51Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.↑
52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑
52Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.↑
53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑
53Comp. de Wette, in loc.↑
54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑
54Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.↑
55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑
55This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles.↑
56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑
56In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals theγνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.↑
57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑
57Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.↑
58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑
58This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (exceptingvi. 68),such as place him in marked subordination to John[here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.†We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul.↑
59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑
59Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.↑
60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑
60Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.↑
61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑
61Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.↑
62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑
62Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.↑
63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑
63Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.↑
64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑
64Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.↑
65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑
65Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.↑
66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑
66Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f.↑
67De Wette, ut sup.↑
67De Wette, ut sup.↑
68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑
68Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.↑
69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑
69Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f.↑
70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑
70Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.↑
71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑
71Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f.↑
72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑
72Lightfoot, p. 786.↑
73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑
73De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.↑