THE HISTORY OF THE TEMPTATION AS A MYTHUS.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Strauss, David Friedrich and Eliot, George
Source notes
29 Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 120. ↑
30 Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 175 f. ↑
31 Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, s. 378 f. ↑
32 From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said, with Hoffmann (p. 301), that for the conviction of his messiahship and the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and adverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice Jesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite. ↑
33 Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 14: ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βούλονται τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν ὄντως ανθρώπον εἶναι, Χριστὸν δὲ ὲν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς καταβεβηκότα, κ.τ.λ.:—They maintain that Jesus was really man, but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove became Christ in him. ↑
34 Epiphan. hæres. xxviii. 1. ↑
35 Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 13:—περιστερᾶς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτὸν:—of a dove descending and entering into him. ↑
36 See the passage above, § 48, note 7. ↑
37 Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evang., s. 39. ↑
38 Comm. z. Ev. Joh. 1, s. 344. ↑
39 Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 27. ↑
40 Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, s. 23 De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 33. ↑
41 Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., s. 379. ↑
42 Lightfoot, horæ, p. 243. ↑
43 Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kan. Evang., s. 46. ↑
44 Ibid. ↑
45 Thus Euthymius, Kuinöl, and others. ↑
46 Fritzsche, in loc. ↑
47 Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in Ullmann’s and Umbreit’s Studien, 1834, 4, s. 789. ↑
48 Ueber den Lukas, s. 56. ↑
49 Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 46 f. ↑
50 Exegetische Beiträge, 1, s. 277 ff. ↑
51 Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff. ↑
52 In the Essay quoted, s. 768. ↑
53 Thus, e.g., Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315. ↑
54 Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829), drittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38. ↑
55 De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 171. Gramberg, Grundzüge einer Engellehre des A. T., § 5, in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f. ↑
56 Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg. ↑
57 Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge. Kuinöl, in Matt. ↑
58 In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr. Græc. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f. ↑
59 Paulus. ↑
60 Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation, designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature. But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations. ↑
61 Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 124. ↑
62 See the author of the discourse de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, among Cyprian’s works. ↑
63 Compare Joseph. B. J. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 164. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 40. ↑
64 The one proposed by Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 90; the other by Fritzsche, p. 168. ↑
65 Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained against Julian that the devil had made the image of a mountain, φαντασίαν ὄρους τὸν διάβολον πεποιηκέναι, and according to [256]the author of the discourse, already cited, de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, the first temptation it is true passed localiter in deserto, but Jesus only went to the temple and the mountain as Ezekiel did from Chaboras to Jerusalem—that is, in spiritu. ↑
66 Paulus, s. 379. ↑
67 See for the former, H. Farmer, Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s. 217; for the latter, Olshausen in loc., and Hoffmann (s. 326 f.) if I rightly apprehend him. ↑
68 Paulus, s. 377 ff. ↑