1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑22Ut sup. 206 f.↑23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑39Schulz, s. 315.↑40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑51Olshausen, s. 438.↑52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑60Ut sup.↑61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑63Ut sup. s. 208.↑64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑104Ut sup. 180.↑105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑22Ut sup. 206 f.↑23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑39Schulz, s. 315.↑40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑51Olshausen, s. 438.↑52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑60Ut sup.↑61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑63Ut sup. s. 208.↑64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑104Ut sup. 180.↑105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑22Ut sup. 206 f.↑23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑39Schulz, s. 315.↑40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑51Olshausen, s. 438.↑52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑60Ut sup.↑61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑63Ut sup. s. 208.↑64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑104Ut sup. 180.↑105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑22Ut sup. 206 f.↑23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑39Schulz, s. 315.↑40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑51Olshausen, s. 438.↑52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑60Ut sup.↑61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑63Ut sup. s. 208.↑64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑104Ut sup. 180.↑105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑22Ut sup. 206 f.↑23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑39Schulz, s. 315.↑40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑51Olshausen, s. 438.↑52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑60Ut sup.↑61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑63Ut sup. s. 208.↑64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑104Ut sup. 180.↑105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑
1All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus is here excluded.↑
2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑
2Augustin,de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references seeTholuck’sAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.↑
3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑
3Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.↑
4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑
4Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.↑
5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑
5Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche, s. 301.↑
6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑
6Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift, 1834, 2, s. 33.↑
7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑
7Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26; Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.↑
8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑
8Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.↑
9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑
9Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.↑
10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑
10Comp.Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 49.↑
11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑
11Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.↑
12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑
12De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 155 f., Anm.↑
13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑
13Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der Aegyptier, § 6.↑
14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑
14Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.↑
15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑
15Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.↑
16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑
16The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had beenblessedbenedictionibus septem(Baal Turim, in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah,benedictionibus sex.(Targ. Ruth. 3,ibid.) They also counted together with the twentybeatitudinesin the Psalms, as manyvæin Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).↑
17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑
17Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.↑
18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑
18Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58;Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.↑
19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
19This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑
20Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90.Tholuck, s. 21.↑
21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑
21Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.↑
22Ut sup. 206 f.↑
22Ut sup. 206 f.↑
23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑
23Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.↑
24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑
24De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.↑
25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑
25Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.↑
26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑
26Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert, s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.↑
27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑
27Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.↑
28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑
28N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.↑
29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑
29Comm. in Matt., p. 265.↑
30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑
30Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.↑
31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑
31Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.↑
32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑
32Fromvi. 19to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse (p. 169, note).↑
33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑
33Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.↑
34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑
34De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.↑
35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑
35De Wette in loc. des Lukas.↑
36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑
36E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.↑
37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑
37Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.↑
38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑
38Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern,Überden Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.↑
39Schulz, s. 315.↑
39Schulz, s. 315.↑
40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑
40Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.↑
41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑
41Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.↑
42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑
42Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.↑
43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑
43The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover asTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of Matthew.↑
44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑
44Vid. De Wette in loc.↑
45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑
45Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.↑
46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑
46Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.↑
47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑
47Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.↑
48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑
48Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.↑
49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑
49L. J. Chr., s. 175.↑
50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑
50Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.↑
51Olshausen, s. 438.↑
51Olshausen, s. 438.↑
52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑
52Schleiermacher, s. 120.↑
53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑
53Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.↑
54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑
54Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut sup.; De Wette in loc.↑
55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑
55Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431; Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.↑
56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑
56Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.↑
57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑
57Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.↑
58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑
58Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.↑
59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑
59Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.↑
60Ut sup.↑
60Ut sup.↑
61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑
61Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses fromv. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers thatv. 13is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from theprudentuse of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion tov. 9and10–12, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.↑
62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑
62Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.↑
63Ut sup. s. 208.↑
63Ut sup. s. 208.↑
64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑
64Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.↑
65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑
65Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.↑
66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑
66On the Essenes ascontemners of riches(καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.↑
67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑
67Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.↑
68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑
68Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p. 188.↑
69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑
69This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.↑
70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑
70How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.↑
71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑
71Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.↑
72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑
72V. 12.Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.14.οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.15.καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν[354]λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·)27.—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’ αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.↑
73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑
73Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.↑
74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑
74Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 811.↑
75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑
75Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.↑
76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑
76From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables.↑
77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑
77Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.↑
78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑
78Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.↑
79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
79Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑
80Vid.Fritzscheand De Wette, in loc.↑
81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑
81Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.↑
82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑
82Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.↑
83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑
83Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.↑
84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑
84Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein, Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.↑
85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑
85Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.↑
86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑
86E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.↑
87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑
87For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.↑
88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑
88Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.↑
89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑
89In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good forthe present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there; for atv. 32 ff.he adds,He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views. Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.↑
90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑
90Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.↑
91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑
91A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.↑
92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑
92Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.↑
93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑
93See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.↑
94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑
94L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.↑
95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑
95Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.; also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.↑
96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
96Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑
97Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.↑
98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑
98Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.↑
99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑
99Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.↑
100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑
100Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.↑
101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑
101Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.↑
102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑
102Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 54.↑
103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑
103Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.↑
104Ut sup. 180.↑
104Ut sup. 180.↑
105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑
105Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189,1, 2, s. 67, 76.↑
106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑
106Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.↑
107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑
107Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.↑
108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑
108Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.↑
109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑
109Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.↑
110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑
110Comp. De Wette, in loc.↑