The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (4th ed.)

57 Geschichte der hebräischen Nation, Theil. i. s. 123. ↑

58 In Henke’s Magazin, 5ten Bdes. 1tes Stück. s. 163. ↑

59 Versuch über die genetische oder formelle Erklärungsart der Wunder. In Henke’s Museum, i. 3. 1803. ↑

60 Kaiser’s biblische Theologie, 1 Thl. ↑

61 Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur. ii. 1. s. 46. ↑

62 Gabler’s neuestes theolog. Journal, 7 Bd. ↑

63 Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, v. s. 235. ↑

64 Ullmann, Recens. meines L. J., in den Theol. Studien u. Kritiken 1836. 3. ↑

65 George, Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Entwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhältnisses zum christlichen Glauben, s. 11. ff. 108. ff. ↑

66 Work cited, § 8, note 4. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32. Tholuck, s. 208. ff. Kern, die Hauptsachen der evangelischen Geschichte, 1st Article, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1836, ii. s. 39. ↑

67 Comp. Kuinöl, Prolegom. in Matthæum, § 3; in Lucam, § 6. ↑

68 e.g. Ammon, in der Diss.: Ascensus J. C. in cœlum historia biblica, in seinen Opusc. nov. ↑

69 In Bertholdt’s Krit. Journ. v. Bd. s. 248. ↑

70 Gabler’s neuestes theol. Journal, Bd. vii. s. 395. ↑

71 Encyclopädie der theol. Wissenschaften, s. 161. ↑

72 In Gabler’s neuestem theolog. Journal, Bd. vi. 4tes Stück. s. 350. ↑

73 Gränzbestimmung dessen, was in der Bibel Mythus, u. s. f., und was wirkliche Geschichte ist. In seiner Bibliothek der heiligen Geschichte, ii. Bd. s. 155. ff. ↑

74 Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der historischen Bucher des A. T., besonders des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatz gegen die blos mythische Deutung des letztern. Fritzsche. Kelle. ↑

75 Exegetisches Handbuch, i. a. s. 1, 71. ↑

76 Greiling in Henke’s Museum, i. 4. s. 621. ff. ↑

77 See the quotations given by De Wette in his “Einleitung in d. N. T.” § 76. ↑

78 Euseb. H. E., iii. 39. ↑

79 Ullman, Credner, Lücke, De Wette. ↑

80 Hieron. de vir. illustr. 3. ↑

81 Contra Celsum, ii. 16. v. 56. ↑

82 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. ↑

83 This is clearly demonstrated by Griesbach in his “Commentatio, quâ Marci Evangelium totum e Matthæi et Lucæ commentariis decerptum esse demonstratur.” ↑

84 Chap. xvi. 10–17; xx. 5–15; xxi. 1–17; xxvii. 1–28; xxviii. 10–16. ↑

85 Euseb. H. E. v. 20, 24. ↑

86 De Wette, Gieseler. ↑

87 Ad. Autol. ii., 22. ↑

88 See Schleiermacher. ↑

89 This same want of distinction has led the Alexandrians to allegorize, the Deists to scoff, [76]and the Supernaturalists to strain the meaning of words; as was done lately by Hoffmann in describing David’s behaviour to the conquered Ammonites. (Christoterpe auf 1838, s. 184.) ↑

90 Heydenreich, über die Unzulässigkeit, u. s. f. 1 stück. Compare Storr, doctr. christ. § 35. ff. ↑

91 If the Supranatural view contains a theological contradiction, so the new evangelical theology, which esteems itself raised so far above the old supranatural view, contains a logical contradiction. To say that God acts only mediately upon the world as the general rule, but sometimes, by way of exception, immediately,—has some meaning, though perhaps not a wise one. But to say that God acts always immediately on the world, but in some cases more particularly immediately,—is a flat contradiction in itself. On the principle of the immanence or immediate agency of God in the world, to which the new evangelical theology lays claim, the idea of the miraculous is impossible. Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 3, s. 46 f. ↑

92 In this view essentially coincide Wegscheider, instit. theol. dogm. § 12; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., Vorbereitung; Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. § 46 f.; Marheineke, Dogm. § 269 ff. Comp. George, s. 78 f. ↑

93 To a freedom from this presupposition we lay claim in the following work; in the same sense as a state might be called free from presupposition where the privileges of station, etc., were of no account. Such a state indeed has one presupposition, that of the natural equality of its citizens; and similarly do we take for granted the equal amenability to law of all events; but this is merely an affirmative form of expression for our former negation. But to claim for the biblical history especial laws of its own, is an affirmative proposition, which, according to the established rule, is that which requires proof, and not our denial of it, which is merely negative. And if the proof cannot be given, or be found insufficient, it is the former and not the latter, which is to be considered a presupposition. See my Streitschriften i. 3. s. 36 ff. ↑

94Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie, s. 110 ff. With this Ullmann, and J. Müller in their reviews of this work, Hoffmann, s. 113 f., and others are agreed as far as relates to the heathen mythi. Especially compare George, Mythus und Sage, s. 15 ff. 103. ↑

95 The words of Baur in his review of Müller’s Prolegomena, in Jahn’s Jahrbüchern f. Philol. u. Pädag. 1828. 1 Heft, s. 7. ↑

96 I. 19. ↑