THE REST OF THE TWELVE, AND THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Strauss, David Friedrich and Eliot, George
Source notes
32 De Wette, ut sup. ↑
33 Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240. ↑
34 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76. ↑
35 Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470. ↑
36 Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1. ↑
37 iii. i. 4. ↑
38 Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning. ↑
39 Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308. ↑
40 Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134. ↑
41 Ut sup., p. 77. ↑
42 De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93. ↑
43 Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632. ↑
44 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85. ↑
45 Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85. ↑
46 Ut sup., s. 88. ↑
47 Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. 13. ↑
48 Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87. ↑
49 If ἡ πόλις Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου, John i. 45, mean the same as ἡ ἰδία πόλις, Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the synoptists. ↑
50 Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358. ↑
51 Comp. Lightfoot, in loc. ↑
52 Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f. ↑
53 Comp. de Wette, in loc. ↑
54 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556. ↑
55 This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles. ↑
56 In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated to these three individuals the γνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted. Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234. ↑
57 Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance. ↑
58 This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says: “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (excepting vi. 68), such as place him in marked subordination to John [here the passages above considered are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John.” We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school of John, as well as of Paul. ↑
59 Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708. ↑
60 Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138. ↑
61 Lücke, ut sup. s. 664. ↑
62 Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f. ↑
63 Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137. ↑
64 Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer, Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98. ↑
65 Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9. ↑
66 Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98 f. ↑
67 De Wette, ut sup. ↑
68 Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f. ↑
69 Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 13 f. ↑
70 Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit. Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5. ↑
71 Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 127 f. ↑