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

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. ↑

307

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.

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. ↑