§ 104 Jesus curses a barren fig-tree
The anecdote of the fig-tree which Jesus caused to wither by his word, because when he was hungry he found no fruit on it, is peculiar to the two first gospels (Matt. xxi. 18 ff.; Mark xi. 12 ff.), but is narrated by them with divergencies which must affect our view of the fact. One of these divergencies of Mark from Matthew, appears so favourable to the natural explanation, that, chiefly in consideration of it, a tendency towards the natural view of the miracles of Jesus has been of late ascribed to this Evangelist; and for the sake of this one favourable divergency, he has been defended in relation to the other rather inconvenient one, which is found in the narrative before us.
If we were restricted to the manner in which the first Evangelist states the consequence of the curse of Jesus: and immediately the fig-tree withered away καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ, it would be difficult here to carry out a natural explanation; for even the forced interpretation of Paulus, which makes the word παραχρῆμα (immediately) only exclude further human accession to the fact, and not a longer space of time, rests only on an unwarranted transference of Mark’s particulars into the narrative of Matthew. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig-tree on the morning after His entrance into Jerusalem, and not till the following morning the disciples remark, in passing, that the tree is withered. Through this interim, which Mark leaves open between the declaration of Jesus and the withering of the tree, the natural explanation of the whole narrative insinuates itself, taking its stand on the possibility, that in this interval the tree might have withered from natural causes. Accordingly, Jesus is supposed to have remarked in the tree, besides the lack of fruit, a condition from which he prognosticated that it would soon wither away, and to have uttered this prediction in the words: No one will ever again gather fruit from thee. The heat of the day having realized the prediction of Jesus with unexpected rapidity, and the disciples remarking this the next morning, they then first connected this result with the words of Jesus on the previous morning, and began to regard them as a curse: an interpretation which, indeed, Jesus does not confirm, but impresses on the disciples, that if they have only some self-reliance, they will be able, not only to predict such physiologically evident results, but also to know and effect things far more difficult.345 But even admitting Mark’s statement to be the correct one, the natural explanation still remains impossible. For the words of Jesus in Mark (v. 14): μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever, if they had been meant to imply a mere conjecture as to what would probably happen, must necessarily have had a potential signification given to them by the addition of ἂν; and in the expression of Matthew: μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever, the command is not to be mistaken, although Paulus would only find in this also the expression of a possibility. Moreover the circumstance that Jesus addresses the tree itself, as also the solemn εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, for ever, which he adds, speaks against the idea of a mere prediction, and in favour of a curse; Paulus perceives this fully, and hence with unwarrantable violence he interprets the words λέγει αὐτῇ he saith to it, as if they introduced a saying merely in reference to the tree, while he depreciates the expression εἰς τὸν αἰωνα, by the translation: in time to come. But even if we grant that the Evangelists, owing to their erroneous conception of the incident, may have somewhat altered the words of Jesus, and that he in reality only prognosticated the withering of the tree; still, when the prediction was fulfilled, Jesus did nevertheless ascribe the result to his own supernatural influence. For in speaking of what he has done in relation to the fig-tree, he uses the verb ποιεῖν (v. 21 Matt.); which cannot except by a forced interpretation, be referred to a mere prediction. But more than this, he compares what he has done in relation to the fig-tree, with the removal of mountains; and hence, as this, according to every possible interpretation, is an act of causation, so the other must be regarded as an influence on the tree. In any case, when Peter spoke of the fig-tree as having been cursed by Jesus (v. 21 Mark), either the latter must have contradicted the construction thus put on his words, or his silence must have implied his acquiescence. If then Jesus in the issue ascribes the withering of the tree to his influence, he either by his address to it designed to produce an effect, or he ambitiously misused the accidental result for the sake of deluding his disciples; a dilemma, in which the words of Jesus, as they are given by the Evangelists, decidedly direct us to the former alternative.
Thus we are inexorably thrown back from the naturalistic attempt at an explanation, to the conception of the supranaturalists, pre-eminently difficult as this is in the history before us. We pass over what might be said against the physical possibility of such an influence as is there presupposed; not, indeed, because, with Hase, we could comprehend it through the medium of natural magic,346 but because another difficulty beforehand excludes the inquiry, and does not allow us to come to the consideration of the physical possibility. This decisive difficulty relates to the moral possibility of such an act on the part of Jesus. The miracle he here performs is of a punitive character. Another example of the kind is not found in the canonical accounts of the life of Jesus; the apocryphal gospels alone, as has been above remarked, are full of such miracles. In one of the synoptical gospels there is, on the contrary, a passage often quoted already (Luke ix. 55 f.), in which it is declared, as the profound conviction of Jesus, that the employment of miraculous power in order to execute punishment or to take vengeance, is contrary to the spirit of his vocation; and the same sentiment is attributed to Jesus by the Evangelist, when he applies to him the words of Isaiah: He shall not break a bruised reed, etc. (Matt. xii. 20). Agreeably to this principle, and to his prevalent mode of action, Jesus must rather have given new life to a withered tree, than have made a green one wither; and in order to comprehend his conduct on this occasion, we must be able to show reasons which he might possibly have had, for departing in this instance from the above principle, which has no mark of unauthenticity. The occasion on which he enunciated that principle was when, on the refusal of a Samaritan village to exercise hospitality towards Jesus and his disciples, the sons of Zebedee asked him whether they should not rain down fire on the village, after the example of Elijah. Jesus replied by reminding them of the nature of the spirit to which they belonged, a spirit with which so destructive an act was incompatible. In our present case Jesus had not to deal with men who had treated him with injustice, but with a tree which he happened not to find in the desired state. Now, there is here no special reason for departing from the above rule; on the contrary, the chief reason which in the first case might possibly have moved Jesus to determine on a judicial miracle, is not present in the second. The moral end of punishment, namely, to bring the punished person to a conviction and acknowledgment of his error, can have no existence in relation to a tree; and even punishment in the light of retribution is out of the question when we are treating of natural objects destitute of volition.347 For one to be irritated against an inanimate object, which does not happen to be found just in the desired state, is with reason pronounced to be a proof of an uncultivated mind; to carry such indignation to the destruction of the object is regarded as barbarous, and unworthy of a reasonable being; and hence Woolston is not wrong in maintaining, that in any other person than Jesus, such an act would be severely blamed.348 It is true that when a natural object is intrinsically and habitually defective, it may very well happen, that it may be removed out of the way, in order to put a better in its place; a measure, however, for which, in every case, only the owner has the adequate motive and authority (comp. Luke xiii. 7). But that this tree, because just at that time it presented no fruit, would not have borne any in succeeding years, was by no means self-evident:—nay, the contrary is implied in the narrative, since the form in which the curse of Jesus is expressed, that fruit shall never more grow on the tree, presupposes, that without this curse the tree might yet have been fruitful.
Thus the evil condition of the tree was not habitual but temporary; still further, if we follow Mark, it was not even objective, or existing intrinsically in the tree, but purely subjective, that is, a result of the accidental relation of the tree to the momentary wish and want of Jesus. For according to an addition which forms the second feature peculiar to Mark in this narrative, it was not then the time of figs (v. 13); it was not therefore a defect, but, on the contrary, quite in due order, that this tree, as well as others, had no figs on it, and Jesus (in whom it is already enough to excite surprise that he expected to find figs on the tree so out of season) might at least have reflected, when he found none, on the groundlessness of his expectation, and have forborne so wholly unjust an act as the cursing of the tree. Even some of the fathers stumbled at this addition of Mark’s and felt that it rendered the conduct of Jesus enigmatical;349 and to descend to later times, Woolston’s ridicule is not unfounded, when he says that if a Kentish countryman were to seek for fruit in his garden in spring, and were to cut down the trees which had none, he would be a common laughing-stock. Expositors have attempted to free themselves from the difficulty which this addition introduces, by a motley series of conjectures and interpretations. On the one hand, the wish that the perplexing words did not stand in the text, has been turned into the hypothesis that they may probably be a subsequent gloss.350 On the other hand, as, if an addition of this kind must stand there, the contrary statement, namely, that it was then the time of figs, were rather to be desired, in order to render intelligible the expectation of Jesus, and his displeasure when he found it deceived; it has been attempted in various ways to remove the negative out of the proposition. One expedient is altogether violent, οὗ being read instead of οὐ, a point inserted after ἦν, and a second ἦν supplied after σύκων, so that the translation runs thus: ubi enim tum versabatur (Jesus), tempus ficuum erat;351 another expedient, the transformation of the sentence into an interrogatory one, nonne enim, etc., is absurd.352 A third expedient is to understand the words καιρὸς σύκων as implying the time of the fig-gathering, and thus to take Mark’s addition as a statement that the figs were not yet gathered, i.e. were still on the trees,353 in support of which interpretation, appeal is made to the phrase καιρὸς τῶν καρπῶν (Matt. xxi. 34). But this expression strictly refers only to the antecedent of the harvest, the existence of the fruits in the fields or on the trees; when it stands in an affirmative proposition, it can only be understood as referring to the consequent, namely, the possible gathering of the fruit, in so far as it also includes the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field: hence ἔστι καιρὸς καρπῶν can only mean thus much: the (ripe) fruits stand in the fields, and are therefore ready to be gathered. In like manner, when the above expression stands in a negative proposition, the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field, on the trees, etc., is primarily denied, that of the consequent only secondarily and by implication; thus οὐκ ἔστι καιρὸς σύκων, means: the figs are not on the trees, and therefore not ready to be gathered; by no means the reverse: they are not yet gathered, and therefore are still on the trees. But this unexampled figure of speech, by which, while according to the words the antecedent is denied, according to the sense only the consequent is denied, and the antecedent affirmed, is not all which the above explanation entails upon us; it also requires the admission of another figure which is sometimes called synchisis, sometimes hyperbaton. For, as a statement that the figs were then still on the trees, the addition in question does not show the reason why Jesus found none on that tree, but why he expected the contrary; it ought therefore, say the advocates of this explanation, to stand, not after he found nothing but leaves, but after he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon; a transposition, however, which only proves that this whole explanation runs counter to the text. Convinced, on the one hand, that the addition of Mark denies the prevalence of circumstances favourable to the existence of figs on that tree, but, on the other hand, still labouring to justify the expectation of Jesus, other expositors have sought to give to that negation, instead of the general sense, that it was not the right season of the year for figs, a fact of which Jesus must unavoidably have been aware, the particular sense, that special circumstances only not necessarily known to Jesus, hindered the fruitfulness of the tree. It would have been a hindrance altogether special, if the soil in which the tree was rooted had been an unfruitful one; hence, according to some, the words καιρὸς σύκων actually signify a soil favourable to figs.354 Others with more regard to the verbal meaning of καιρὸς, adhere it is true to the interpretation of it as favourable time, but instead of understanding the statement of Mark universally, as referring to a regular, annual season, in which figs were not to be obtained, they maintain it to mean that that particular year was from some incidental causes unfavourable to figs.355 But the immediate signification of καιρὸς is the right, in opposition to the wrong season, not a favourable season as opposed to an unfavourable one. Now, when any one, even in an unproductive year, seeks for fruits at the time in which they are wont to be ripe, it cannot be said that it is the wrong season for fruit; on the contrary, the idea of a bad year might be at once conveyed by the statement, that when the time for fruit came, ὅτε ἦλθεν ὁ καιρὸς τῶν καρπῶν, there was none to be found. In any case, if the whole course of the year were unfavourable to figs, a fruit so abundant in Palestine, Jesus must almost as necessarily have known this as that it was the wrong season; so that the enigma remains, how Jesus could be so indignant that the tree was in a condition which, owing to circumstances known to him, was inevitable.
But let us only remember who it is to whom we owe that addition. It is Mark, who, in his efforts after the explanatory and the picturesque, so frequently draws on his own imagination; and in doing this, as it has been long ago perceived, and as we also have had sufficient opportunities of observing on our way, he does not always go to work in the most considerate manner. Thus, here, he is arrested by the first striking particular that presents itself, namely, that the tree was without fruit, and hastens to furnish the explanation, that it was not the time for figs, not observing that while he accounts physically for the barrenness of the tree, he makes the conduct of Jesus morally inexplicable. Again, the above-mentioned divergency from Matthew in relation to the time within which the tree withered, far from evincing more authentic information,356 or a tendency to the natural explanation of the marvellous on the part of Mark, is only another product of the same dramatising effort as that which gave birth to the above addition. The idea of a tree suddenly withering at a word, is difficult for the imagination perfectly to fashion; whereas it cannot be called a bad dramatic contrivance, to lay the process of withering behind the scenes, and to make the result be first noticed by the subsequent passers by. For the rest, in the assertion that it was then (a few days before Easter) no time for figs, Mark is so far right, as it regards the conditions of climate in Palestine, that at so early a time of the year the new figs of the season were not yet ripe, for the early fig or boccore is not ripe until the middle or towards the end of June; while the proper fig, the kermus, ripens only in the month of August. On the other hand, there might about Easter still be met with here and there, hanging on the tree, the third fruit of the fig-tree, the late kermus, which had remained from the previous autumn, and through the winter:357 as we read in Josephus that a part of Palestine (the shores of the Galilean sea), more fruitful, certainly, than the country around Jerusalem, where the history in question occurred, produces figs uninterruptedly during ten months of the year, σῦκον δέκα μησὶν ἀδιαλείπτως χορηγεῖ.358
But even when we have thus set aside this perplexing addition of Mark’s, that the tree was not really defective, but only appeared so to Jesus in consequence of an erroneous expectation: there still subsists, even according to Matthew, the incongruity that Jesus appears to have destroyed a natural object on account of a deficiency which might possibly be merely temporary. He cannot have been prompted to this by economical considerations, since he was not the owner of the tree; still less can he have been actuated by moral views, in relation to an inanimate object of nature; hence the expedient has been adopted of substituting the disciples as the proper object on which Jesus here intended to act, and of regarding the tree, and what Jesus does to it, as a mere means to his ultimate design. This is the symbolical interpretation, by which first the fathers of the church, and of late the majority of orthodox theologians among the moderns, have thought to free Jesus from the charge of an unsuitable action. According to them, anger towards the tree which presented nothing to appease his hunger, was not the feeling of Jesus, in performing this action; his object not simply the extermination of the unfruitful plant: on the contrary, he judiciously availed himself of the occasion of finding a barren tree, in order to impress a truth on his disciples more vividly and indelibly than by words. This truth may either be conceived under a special form, namely, that the Jewish nation which persisted in rendering no pleasing fruit to God and to the Messiah, would be destroyed; or under the general form, that every one who was as destitute of good works as this tree was of fruit, had to look forward to a similar condemnation.359 Other commentators however with reason maintain, that if Jesus had had such an end in view in the action, he must in some way have explained himself on the subject; for if an elucidation was necessary when he delivered a parable, it was the more indispensable when he performed a symbolical action, in proportion as this, without such an indication of an object lying beyond itself, was more likely to be mistaken for an object in itself;360 it is true that, here as well as elsewhere, it might be supposed, that Jesus probably enlarged on what he had done, for the instruction of his disciples, but that the narrators, content with the miracle, have omitted the illustrative discourse. If however Jesus gave an interpretation of his act in the alleged symbolical sense, the Evangelists have not merely been silent concerning this discourse, but have inserted a false one in its place; for they represent Jesus, after his procedure with respect to the tree, not as being silent, but as giving, in answer to an expression of astonishment on the part of his disciples, an explanation which is not the above symbolical one, but a different, nay, an opposite one. For when Jesus says to them that they need not wonder at the withering of the fig-tree, since with only a little faith they will be able to effect yet greater things, he lays the chief stress on his agency in the matter, not on the condition and the fate of the tree as a symbol: therefore, if his design turned upon the latter, he would have spoken to his disciples so as to contravene that design; or rather, if he so spoke, that cannot have been his design. For the same reason, falls also Sieffert’s totally unsupported hypothesis, that Jesus, not indeed after, but before that act, when on the way to the fig-tree, had held a conversation with his disciples on the actual condition and future lot of the Jewish nation, and that to this conversation the symbolical cursing of the tree was a mere key-stone, which explained itself: for all comprehension of the act in question which that introduction might have facilitated, must, especially in that age when there was so strong a bias towards the miraculous, have been again obliterated by the subsequent declaration of Jesus, which regarded only the miraculous side of the fact. Hence Ullmann has judged rightly in preferring to the symbolical interpretation, although he considers it admissible, another which had previously been advanced:361 namely, that Jesus by this miracle intended to give his followers a new proof of his perfect power, in order to strengthen their confidence in him under the approaching perils. Or rather, as a special reference to coming trial is nowhere exhibited, and as the words of Jesus contain nothing which he had not already said at an earlier period (Matt. xvii. 20; Luke xvii. 6), Fritzsche is more correct in expressing the view of the Evangelists quite generally, thus: Jesus used his displeasure at the unfruitfulness of the tree, as an occasion for performing a miracle, the object of which was merely the general one of all his miracles, namely to attest his Messiahship.362 Hence Euthymius speaks entirely in the spirit of the narrators, as described by Fritzsche,363 when he forbids all investigation into the special end of the action, and exhorts the reader only to look at it in general as a miracle.364 But it by no means follows from hence that we too should refrain from all reflection on the subject, and believingly receive the miracle without further question; on the contrary, we cannot avoid observing, that the particular miracle which we have now before us, does not admit of being explained as a real act of Jesus, either upon the general ground of performing miracles, or from any peculiar object or motive whatever. Far from this, it is in every respect opposed both to his theory and his prevailing practice, and on this account, even apart from the question of its physical possibility, must be pronounced more decidedly, than any other, to be such a miracle as Jesus cannot really have performed.
It is incumbent on us, however, to adduce positive proof of the existence of such causes as, even without historical foundation, might give rise to a narrative of this kind. Now in our usual source, the Old Testament, we do, indeed, find many figurative discourses and narratives about trees, and fig-trees in particular; but none which has so specific an affinity to our narrative, that we could say the latter is an imitation of it. But we need not search long in the New Testament, before we find, first in the mouth of the Baptist (Matt. iii. 10), then in that of Jesus (vii. 19), the apothegm of the tree, which, because it bears no good fruit, is cut down and cast into the fire; and further on (Luke xiii. 6 ff.) this theme is dilated into the fictitious history of a man who for three years in vain seeks for fruit on a fig-tree in his vineyard, and on this account determines to cut it down, but that the gardener intercedes for another year’s respite. It was already an idea of some fathers of the church, that the cursing of the fig-tree was only the parable of the barren fig-tree carried out into action.365 It is true that they held this opinion in the sense of the explanation before cited, namely, that Jesus himself, as he had previously exhibited the actual condition and the approaching catastrophe of the Jewish people in a figurative discourse, intended on the occasion in question to represent them by a symbolical action; which, as we have seen, is inconceivable. Nevertheless, we cannot help conjecturing, that we have before us one and the same theme under three different modifications: first, in the most concentrated form, as an apothegm; then expanded into a parable; and lastly realized as a history. But we do not suppose that what Jesus twice described in words, he at length represented by an action; in our opinion, it was tradition which converted what it met with as an apothegm and a parable into a real incident. That in the real history the end of the tree is somewhat different from that threatened in the apothegm and parable, namely, withering instead of being cut down, need not amount to a difficulty. For had the parable once become a real history, with Jesus for its subject, and consequently its whole didactic and symbolical significance passed into the external act, then must this, if it were to have any weight and interest, take the form of a miracle, and the natural destruction of the tree by means of the axe must be transformed into an immediate withering on the word of Jesus. It is true that there seems to be the very same objection to this conception of the narrative which allows its inmost kernel to be symbolical, as to the one above considered; namely, that it is contravened by the words of Jesus which are appended to the narrative. But on our view of the gospel histories we are warranted to say, that with the transformation of the parable into a history, its original sense also was lost, and as the miracle began to be regarded as constituting the pith of the matter, that discourse on miraculous power and faith, was erroneously annexed to it. Even the particular circumstance that led to the selection of the saying about the removal of the mountain for association with the narrative of the fig-tree, may be shown with probability. The power of faith, which is here represented by an effectual command to a mountain: Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, is elsewhere (Luke xvii. 6) symbolized by an equally effectual command to a species of fig-tree (συκάμινος): Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea. Hence the cursing of the fig-tree, so soon as its withering was conceived to be an effect of the miraculous power of Jesus, brought to mind the tree or the mountain which was to be transported by the miraculous power of faith, and this saying became appended to that fact. Thus, in this instance, praise is due to the third gospel for having preserved to us the parable of the barren συκῆ, and the apothegm of the συκάμινος to be transplanted by faith, distinct and pure, each in its original form and significance; while the two other synoptists have transformed the parable into a history, and have misapplied the apothegm (in a somewhat altered form) to a false explanation of that pretended history.366
6: καὶ ἐπέστρεψε τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐγένετο καθὼς τὸ πρότερον.
Matth. xii. 10: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἐ͂ν τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν (Mark, ἐξηραμμένην.)
13: τότε λέγει τῷ ἀνθρωπῳ· ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα σου· καὶ ἐξέτεινε· καὶ ἀποκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη.
| Mark ii. 9: (τί ἐστιν, εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν——) ἔγειραι, καὶ ἆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον καὶ περιπάτει; 11:—ἔγειρα καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. | John v. 8: ἔγειραι, ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου, καὶ περιπάτει. |
| 12: καὶ ἠγέρθη εὐθέως, καὶ ὤρας τὸν κράββατον ἐξῆλθεν ἐναντίον πάντων. | 9: καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρε τὸν κράββατον αὑτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει. |
| 2 Kings iv. 43, LXX.: τί δῶ τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν; | John vi. 9: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους; |
| Ibid. v. 44: καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου. | Matt. xiv. 20: καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ. |
Notes
1 See the passages quoted in the first volume, Introd. § 14, notes 9, 10, to which may be added 4 Esdr. xiii. 50 (Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. ii. p. 286), and Sohar Exod. fol. iii. col. 12 (Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 541, also in Bertholdt’s Christol. § 33, note 1).
2 See the rabbinical passages quoted in the 1st vol. ut sup.
3 That the σεληνιαζόμενοι associated with them by Matthew are only a particular species of demoniacs, whose malady appeared to be governed by the changes of the moon, is proved by Matt. xvii. 14 ff. where a δαιμόνιον is expelled from a σεληνιαζόμενος.
4 Compare the passages of ancient physicians, ap. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 191.
5 Rabbinical and other passages, ap. Winer, ut sup. s. 192.
6 Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 475; comp. Hase, L. J. s. 60.
7 Ut sup. s. 191.
8 Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 615.
9 B. Comm. 1, s. 424. According to this, the passage relates to the Jewish people, who before the exile were possessed by the devil in the form of idolatry, and afterwards in the worst form of Pharisaism.
10 Thus Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 447.
11 Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 566.
12 Ut sup. 1, b, s. 483; 2, s. 96.
13 Hence the words δαιμονᾷν, κακοδαιμονᾷν were used as synonymous with μελανχολᾷν μαίνεσθαι. Hippocrates had to combat the opinion that epilepsy was the effect of demoniacal influence. Vid. Wetstein, s. 282 ff.
14 Let the reader compare the רוּחַ רָעָה מֵאֵת יְהוָֹה, which made Saul melancholy, 1 Sam. xvi. 14. Its influence on Saul is expressed by בִּעֲתַתּוּ.
15 Vid. Creuzer, Symbolik, 3, s. 69 f.; Baur, Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, s. 144.
16 Bell. jud. vii. vi. 3.
17 Antiq. vi. xi. 2. On the state of Saul.
18 Philopseud., 16.
19 Vitæ Apollon. iv. 20, 25, comp. Baur, ut sup. s. 38 f. 42. Even Aristotle speaks of δαίμονί τινι γενομένοις κατόχοις. de mirab. 166, ed. Bekk.
20 Ut sup., bell. j.: τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια—πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα, τοῖς ζῶσιν εἰσδυόμενα καὶ κτείνοντα τοὺς βοηθείας μὴ τυνχάνοντας.
21 Apoll. i. 18.
22 Ut sup. iii. 38.
23 Vid. Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 2, s. 427.
24 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 39; L. J. 1, a, s. 217. He appeals in support of this to Matt. xiv. 2, where Herod, on hearing of the miracles of Jesus, says: It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead. In this expression Paulus finds the rabbinical opinion of the עיבור, which is distinct from that of the גלגזל, or transmigration of souls properly so called, (that is, the passage of disembodied souls into the bodies of infants, while in the process of formation), and according to which the soul of a dead person might unite itself to that of a living one, and add to its power (vid. Eisenmenger 2, s. 85 ff.) But, as Fritzsche and others have shown, the word ἠγέρθη refers to an actual resurrection of the Baptist, and not to this rabbinical notion; which, moreover, even were it implied, is totally different from that of demoniacal possession. Here it would be a good spirit who had entered into a prophet for the strengthening of his powers, as according to a later Jewish idea the soul of Seth was united to that of Moses, and again the souls of Moses and Aaron to that of Samuel (Eisenmenger, ut sup.); but from this it would by no means follow, that it was possible for wicked spirits to enter into the living.
25 Justin, Apol. ii. 5., Eisenmenger, ut sup.
26 Homil. viii. 18 f., ix. 9 f.
27 Orat. contra Græcos, 16.
28 See his Commentatio de dæmoniacis quorum in N. T. fit mentio, and his minute consideration of demoniacal cases. So early as the time of Origen, physicians gave natural explanations of the state of those supposed to be possessed. Orig. in Matth. xvii. 15.
29 B. Comm. 1, s. 296, Anm.
30 S. 295 f.
31 S. 302, after the example of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 474.
32 Homil. viii. 19.
33 Thus Asmodeus chooses Sara and her husband as objects of torment and destruction, not because either the former or the latter were particularly wicked, but because Sara’s beauty attracted him. Tob. vi. 12–15.
34 S. 294.
35 It fills s. 289–298.
36 I have endeavoured to present helps towards a scientific conception of the states in question in several essays, which are now incorporated in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken. Comp. Wirth, Theorie des Somnambulismus. S. 311 ff.
37 See note 16, the passage quoted from Lucian.
38 Joseph., Antiq. viii. ii. 5.
39 Joseph., ut sup.
40 Gittin, f. lxvii. 2.
41 Justin Mart. dial. c. Tryph. lxxxv.
42 Exeg. Handb. 1, 6, s. 422; L. J. 1, a, s. 128.
43 Bibl. Comm. i. 296.
44 Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. Jud. §§ 36–41.
45 According to Pesikta in Jalkut Schimoni ii. f. lvi. 3 (s. Bertholdt, p. 185). Satan recognizes in the same manner the pre-existing Messiah at the foot of the throne of God with terror, as he qui me et omnes gentiles in infernum præcipitaturus est.
46 Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 35: In multis evangeliorum locis homines legas a pravis dæmonibus agitatos, quum primum conspexerint Jesum, eum Messiam esse, a nemine unquam de hac re commonitos, statim intelligere. In qua re hac nostri scriptores ducti sunt sententia, consentaneum esse. Satanæ satellites facile cognovisse Messiam, quippe insignia de se supplicia aliquando sumturum.
47 A favourite resort of maniacs, vid. Lightfoot and Schöttgen, in loc., and of unclean spirits, vid. rabbinical passages, ap. Wetstein.
48 The notion that the cutting himself with stones which Mark ascribes to the demoniac, was an act of penance in lucid moments, belongs to the errors to which Olshausen is led by his false opinion of a moral and religious point of view in relation to these phenomena. It is well known, however, that the paroxysms of such disorders are precisely the occasions on which a self-destructive fury is manifested.
49 Vid. the collection of such explanations, ap. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 327.
50 Thus Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 309; Paulus, in loc. Hase, L. J. § 75.
51 Schulz, ut sup.
52 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 127.
53 Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 232.
54 Vid. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 329.
55 Natürliche Geschichte, 2, 174.
56 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 473; Olshausen, s. 302.
57 This even Paulus, s. 474, and Olshausen, s. 303, find surprising.
58 It is the narrative of the manner in which Apollonius of Tyana unmasked a demon (empusa), vit. Ap. iv. 35; ap. Baur, s. 145.
59 Ut sup. s. 128. When, however, he accounts for this incorrect supplement of Luke’s by supposing that his informant, being engaged in the vessel, had remained behind, and thus had missed the commencement of the scene with the demoniac, this is too laboured an exercise of ingenuity, and presupposes the antiquated opinion, that there was the most immediate relation possible between the evangelical histories and the facts which they report.
60 S. 305, Anm.
61 Clem. Horn. ix. 10.
62 Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 332. According to Eisenmenger, 2, 447 ff., the Jews held that demons generally had a predilection for impure places, and in Jalkut Rubeni f. x. 2. (Wetstein) we find this observation: Anima idololatrarum, quæ venit a spiritu immundo, vocatur porcus.
63 Ut sup. s. 474, 485. Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 192.
64 Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 330.
65 Paulus, ut sup. s. 475 f.
66 Olshausen, s. 307.
67 Paulus, s. 474.
68 Paulus, s. 485; Winer, ut sup.
69 Olshausen, ut sup.
70 Ibid.
71 Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in seinen Studien, 1, 1, s. 51 f.
72 Olshausen, ut sup.
73 Paulus.
74 Ullmann.
75 E.g. Woolston, Disc. 1, p. 32 ff.
76 Jamblich. vita Pythag. no. 36. ed. Kiessling.
77 In the Abhandlung über genetische oder formelle Erklärungsart der Wunder in Henke’s Museum, 1, 3, s. 410 ff.
78 Exeg. Beiträge, 2, 109 ff.
79 Antiq. viii. ii. 5.
80 Philostr. v. Ap. iv. 20; ap. Baur, ut sup. s. 39.
81 Schulz. s. 319.
82 As Schulz appears to do, ut sup.
83 See the passages quoted by Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 569, and by Winer, 1, s. 191 f.
84 Thus Fritzsche, in loc.
85 Schleiermacher, s. 150.
86 Köster, Immanuel, s. 197; Fritzsche, in loc.
87 De abstinent. ii. p. 204 and 417 f.; Vid. Winer, 1, s. 191.
88 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 471 f.
89 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 438; L. J. 1, a, s. 223; De Wette, bibl. Dogm. § 222, Anm. c.
90 Exeg. Handb. in loc.
91 Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 429.
92 Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 196.
93 Among the transient disorders on which Jesus may have acted psychologically, we may perhaps number the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law, which Jesus is said to have cured, Matt. viii. 14 ff. parall.
94 It is so more or less by Eichhorn, in the allg. Bibliothek, 4, s. 435; Herder, von Gottes Sohn u. s. f., s. 20; Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 313; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., § 269.
95 Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 698 ff.
96 Ut sup. s. 705, and elsewhere.
97 Compare Hase, L. J., § 86.
98 Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 68.
99 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 215.
100 Vid. Winer, Realw., Art. Blinde.
101 Gratz, Comm z. Matth. 2, s. 323.
102 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 44.
103 Schulz, Anmerkungen zu Michaelis, 2, s. 105.
104 Sieffert, ut sup. s. 104.
105 Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s. 345.
106 Ut sup. s. 237.
107 Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 249.
108 Natürl. Gesch. des Propheten von Naz. 2, s. 216.
109 Vid. vol. i. p. 81, note.
110 Elsewhere also we find proof that in those times the power of effecting miraculous cures, especially of blindness, was commonly ascribed to men who were regarded as favourites of the Deity. Thus Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81, and Suetonius, Vespas. vii. tell us, that in Alexandria a blind man applied to Vespasian, shortly after he was made emperor, alleging that he did so by the direction of the god Serapis, with the entreaty that he would cure him of his blindness by wetting his eyes with his spittle. Vespasian complied, and the result was that the blind man immediately had his sight restored. As Tacitus attests the truth of this story in a remarkable manner, Paulus is probably not wrong in regarding the affair as the contrivance of adulatory priests, who to procure for the emperor the fame of a miracle-worker, and by this means to secure his favour on behalf of their god, by whose counsel the event was occasioned, hired a man to simulate blindness. Ex. Handb. 2, s. 56 f. However this may be, we see from the narrative what was expected, even beyond the limits of Palestine, of a man who, as Tacitus here expresses himself concerning Vespasian, enjoyed favor e cœlis and an inclinatio numinum.
111 These are nearly the words of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 312, 391.
112 De Wette, Beitrag zur Charakteristik des Evangelisten Markus, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1, 4, 789 ff. Comp. Köster, Immanuel, f. 72. On the other hand: comp. De Wette’s exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 148 f.
113 Pliny, H. N. xxviii. 7, and other passages in Wetstein.
114 Paulus, ut sup. s. 312 f. 392 ff.; Natürliche Geschichte, 3, s. 31 ff. 216 f.; Köster, Immanuel, s. 188 ff.
115 For the former explanation, Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s, 390 f.; for the latter, Olshausen, b, Comm. 1. s. 510.
116 Kuinöl, in Marc., p. 110.
117 Olshausen, s. 509.
118 Comp. De Wette, Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, s. 36 f.
119 Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. xliii.
120 Vid. ap. Wetstein and Lightfoot, John ix. 6.
121 Thus Fritzsche, after Euthymius, in Marc., p. 304.
122 The former is the supposition of Kuinöl, the latter of Schott.
123 Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 391, Anm. 1.
124 Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 472.
125 Natürliche Gesch. 3, s. 215.
126 Vid. Tholuck and Lücke, in loc.
127 Vid. Paulus and Lücke, in loc.
128 Thus Euthymius and Paulus, in loc.
129 B. Comm. 2, s. 230, where, however, he refers the ἀπεσταλμένος to the outflow of the spirit proceeding from God.
130 S. 93.
131 Köster, Immanuel, s. 79; Bretschneider, Probab., s. 122.
132 Wetstein, in loc.
133 Nedarim f. xli. 1. (Schöttgen, 1, p. 93): Dixit R. Chija fil. Abba: nullus ægrotus a morbo suo sanatur, donec ipsi omnia peccata remissa sint.
134 Hase, L. J. § 73. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 335.
135 Sanhedr. f. xci. 2, and Bereschith Rabba f. xxxviii. 1. (Lightfoot, p. 1050): Antonius interrogavit Rabbi (Judam): a quonam tempore incipit malus affectus prævalere in homine? an a tempore formationis ejus (in utero), an a tempore processionis ejus (ex utero)? Dicit ei Rabbi: a tempore formationis ejus.
136 Paulus Comm. 4, s. 264; Lücke, 2, s. 22.
137 This is done by Tholuck, in loc.
138 See the examples in Wetstein, N. T. 1, s. 284, and in Wahl’s Clavis.
139 Comp. Winer, Realw., and Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 194.
140 Winer, ut sup. Art. Dach.
141 Lightfoot, p. 601.
142 Woolston, Disc. 4.
143 1, s. 310 f.
144 Köster, Immanuel, s. 166, Anm. 66.
145 This appears to be the meaning of Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 238. Otherwise exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 505.
146 Thus Lightfoot, Kuinöl, Olshausen, in loc.
147 Vid. Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 52.
148 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 498, 501.
149 Bengel, Gnomon, 1, 245, ed. 2. Paulus, s. 502, again takes an obvious fable in Livy ii. 36 for a history, capable of a natural explanation.
150 Paulus, ut sup. s. 501.
151 Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 f.
152 Schulz, ut sup. s. 317; Olshausen, 1, s. 322.
153 Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f.; bibl. Comm. 1, s. 324 f.; comp. Köster, Immanuel, s. 201 ff.
154 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f. 530. L. J. 1, a, s. 244 f.; Venturini, 2, s. 204 ff.; Köster, ut sup.
155 Vid. Evangelium infantiæ arabicum, ap. Fabricius and Thilo.
156 See the observations of Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck, and Olshausen, in loc.
157 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 92.
158 Augustin, de consens. evang. i. 20; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 709; Köster, Immanuel, s. 63.
159 Ueber den Zweck Jesu, u. s. f., s. 351.
160 Vid. Lücke, 1, s. 552.
161 Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 310: discrepat autem Lucas ita a Matthæi narratione, ut centurionem non ipsum venisse ad Jesum, sed per legatos cum eo egisse tradat; quibus dissidentibus pacem obtrudere, boni nego interpretis esse.
162 Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 92 f.
163 Kuinöl, in Matt., p. 221 f.
164 Tholuck, in loc.; Hase § 68, Anm. 2.
165 Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 253 f.; Venturini, 2, s. 140 ff.; comp. Hase, § 68.
166 Lücke, 1, s. 550 f.
167 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 710 f.; Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 285 ff.
168 Clem. homil. ix. 21; Fritzsche, in Matth., 313.
169 Wetstein, N. T. 1, p. 349; comp. Olshausen, in loc.
170 Köster, Immanuel, s. 195, Anm.
171 Lücke, 1, s. 550.
172 Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 268.
173 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 80 f.
174 Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 50.
175 Schleiermacher, ut sup.
176 Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 48 ff.
177 Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 421.
178 Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 796.
179 Paulus, ut sup. s. 49, 54; Köster, Immanuel, s. 185 f.
180 Ut sup. s. 83, ex Tract. Schabbat.
181 Schabbat, f. 12, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 123.
182 See the passage last cited.
183 Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 427; in Mar., p. 79.
184 1 Kings xiii. 4, LXX: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξηράνθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ.
185 Tacit. Hist. iv. 81.
186 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 341 f.
187 Ut sup. s. 196.
188 Winer (bibl. Realw. 1, s. 796) says: We should be contented to refrain from seeking a natural explanation in individual cases (of the cures of Jesus), and ever bear in mind that the banishment of the miraculous out of the agency of Jesus can never be effected so long as the gospels are regarded historically.
189 Disc. 3.
190 Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 263 ff. L. J. 1, a, s. 298.
191 Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.
192 Comp. with Comm. 4, s. 290, his Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 298.
193 Bretschneider, Probab., s. 69.
194 As by Hase, L. J. § 92.
196 Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.
197 Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation: verba [N.B. Matthaei]: ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν, non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est: nam, auctore [N.B. Luca] patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctore Matthaeo?] nondum mortua erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.
198 Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 347 f.
199 Olshausen, in loc.
200 Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl, s. 316 f.
201 Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.
202 Homil. ii. 19.
203 Cap. x.
204 Ut sup. s. 129.
205 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus; while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343. Comp. 338 f.
206 Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, s. 503.
207 Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.
208 Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.
209 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.
210 Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.
211 Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.
212 Venturini, 2, s. 293.
213 Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.
214 Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.
215 Im the translation of the text in his Leben Jesu, 2, b, s. 46, Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel, three subsequent messages.
216 Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93 ff.
217 Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.
218 Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.
219 Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.
220 Lücke, 2, s. 388.
221 Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.
222 Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.
223 Flatt, s. 97 f.
224 Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.
225 Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this conjecture is no longer employed.
226 Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John, so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces those passages to be interpolations.
227 Disc. 5.
228 Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.
229 1, s. 276 f.
230 Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.
231 Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.
232 Ut sup.
233 Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.
234 S. 59 f. 79.
235 Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.
236 This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite.
237 This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in the mouth of Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in his mind.
238 Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.
239 Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.
240 Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.
241 Disc. 5.
242 Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.
243 Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.
244 Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.
245 Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.
246 Whitby, Annot. in loc.
247 Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.
248 See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!
249 Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.
250 Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.
251 Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.
252 Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.
253 Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 110.
254 Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.
255 See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.
256 1 Kings xvii. 23, LXX. καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ, Luke vii. 15: καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.
257 Thus the author of the Abhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods (Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea of a prophet.
258 Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.
259 Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this view probable.
260 Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation.
261 Hase, ut sup.
262 Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.
263 Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly, as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm, etc., πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep.
264 Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.
265 This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.
266 Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.
267 According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were narrated of Pythagoras, ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν, instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.
268 Ut sup. s. 491.
269 Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238 ff.
270 Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.
271 The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.
272 Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.
273 See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.
274 Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence, v. 51, (comp. vii. 37): and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of the excessive astonishment.
275 Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.
276 Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.
277 Homil. in Joann. 43.
278 In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78), is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.
279 Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.
280 See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.
281 Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.
282 Lucian, Philopseudes, 13.
283 Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.
284 See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.
285 Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.
286 Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.
287 Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.
288 Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.
289 Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same page, observes, that according to the words, We have taken no bread, Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only redound to their honour.
290 Ibid.
291 Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 97.
292 Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.
293 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95 ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.
294 Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.
295 Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.
296 Olshausen, s. 513.
297 See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff., 314 ff.
298 Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.
299 This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).
300 Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.
301 For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks.
302 Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.
303 Olshausen, in loc.
304 Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.
305 This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves, and then adds, How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But the form of the question of Jesus: πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε; how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would convey is, according to the text, not that because the present narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.
306 Vid. Vol. I. § 14.
308 Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.
309 Joma f. 39, 1: Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panes προθέσεως, ut singuli sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.
310 Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.
311 Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.
312 Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)
313 In Joann. tract. 8: Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus.
314 Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen: sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.
315 Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.
316 Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.
317 Woolston, Disc. 4.
318 P. 42.
319 Tholuck, in loc.
320 Comm. 4, s. 151 f.
321 Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.
322 C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.
323 Olshausen, ut sup.
324 Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.
325 [A Wirtemberg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]
326 Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.
327 Homil. in Joann. in loc.
328 Tholuck, in loc.
329 This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370).
330 Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.
331 E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.
332 Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.
333 Olshausen, in loc.
334 Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.
335 Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.
336 Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc.
337 He makes the word μεθύσκεσθαι, v. 10, refer to John also.
338 Lücke, s. 407.
339 Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.
340 In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things: Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.
341 A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.
342 We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.
343 Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.
344 De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.
345 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.
346 L. J. § 128.
347 Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44: Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?
348 Disc. 4.
349 Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29: Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup. Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?
350 Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.
351 Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.
352 Maji Obs., ib.
353 Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in Marc, p. 150 f.
354 Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.
355 Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s. 782.
356 As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.
357 Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A. Feigenbaum.
358 Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.
359 Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 378.
360 Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut sup.
361 Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.
362 Comm. in Matt. p. 637.
363 Comm., in Marc. p. 481: Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent. Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.
364 Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.
365 Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut sup.
366 Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1, 2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.