THE NARRATIVES OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, AND OF MARY AND MARTHA.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Strauss, David Friedrich and Eliot, George
Source notes
28 Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2. ↑
29 Lücke, s. 438. ↑
30 Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110. ↑
31 Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch. ↑
32 Kuinöl, in loc. ↑
33 Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43. ↑
34 English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm. ↑
35 Eng. Comm. ap. Lücke. According to Neander (s. 387, Anm.), Jesus, after his last entrance into Jerusalem, when the enthusiasm of the populace was on his side, must have shunned every act that could be interpreted into a design of using external force, and thus creating disturbances. But he must equally have shunned this at the beginning, as at the end, of his career, and the proceeding in the temple was rather a provocation of external force against himself, than a use of it for his own purposes. ↑
36 Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10, 16, p. 321 f., ed. Lommatzsch. ↑
37 Lücke, in loc. ↑
38 Lücke, s. 413. ↑
39 Ib. and Tholuck, in loc. ↑
40 Olshausen, 1, s. 785. ↑
41 Comm. 4, s. 164. ↑
42 Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411. ↑
43 Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410. ↑
44 Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1. ↑
45 Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292; Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm. ↑
46 This difference struck Origen, who has given a critical comparison of these four narratives, to which, in point of acumen, there is no parallel in more modern commentaries. See his in Matth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff. ↑
47 Origenes, ut sup. ↑
48 Ib. ↑
49 Ib. ↑
50 Ib. ↑
51 Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111. ↑
52 Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149. ↑
53
Luke vii. 38: τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.
John xii. 3: ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.
54 Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687. ↑
55 Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f. ↑
56 Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277. ↑
57 Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; also Tholuck, s. 228. ↑
58 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466. ↑
59 Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the words συντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρον signify an accidental fracture; nor, on the other hand can they, without the harshest ellipsis, be understood to imply merely the removal of that which stopped the opening of the vessel, as Paulus and Fritzsche maintain. Interpreted without violence, they can only mean a breaking of the vessel itself. Is it asked with Paulus (Ex. Handb. 3. b. s. 471): To what purpose destroy a costly vessel? or with Fritzsche (in Marc. p. 602): To what purpose risk wounding her own hand, and possibly the head of Jesus also? These are questions which have a bearing on the matter considered as the act of the woman, but not as a narrative of Mark; for that to him, the destruction of a precious vessel should appear suited to the noble prodigality of the woman, is in perfect accordance with the exaggerating style which we have often observed in him. ↑
60 Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689. ↑
61 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 466, and many others. ↑
62 Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff. ↑
63 Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f. ↑
64 Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f. ↑
65 Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60. ↑