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

311 Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74. ↑

312 Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies, that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.) ↑

313 In Joann. tract. 8: Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus. ↑

314 Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen: sicut enim, quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini. ↑

315 Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves. ↑

316 Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21. ↑

317 Woolston, Disc. 4. ↑

318 P. 42. ↑

319 Tholuck, in loc. ↑

320 Comm. 4, s. 151 f. ↑

321 Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f. ↑

322 C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.; comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372. ↑

323 Olshausen, ut sup. ↑

324 Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s. 406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37. ↑

325 [A Wirtemberg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.] ↑

326 Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc. ↑

327 Homil. in Joann. in loc. ↑

328 Tholuck, in loc. ↑

329 This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism (s. 370). ↑

330 Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc. ↑

331 E.g. by Woolston, ut sup. ↑

332 Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc. ↑

333 Olshausen, in loc. ↑

334 Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f. ↑

335 Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff. ↑

336 Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in loc. ↑

337 He makes the word μεθύσκεσθαι, v. 10, refer to John also. ↑

338 Lücke, s. 407. ↑

339 Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. ↑

340 In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it is said among other things: Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc. ↑

341 A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2. ↑

342 We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop. ↑

343 Compare the Probabilia, ut sup. ↑

344 De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed. ↑

345 Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff. ↑

346 L. J. § 128. ↑

347 Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44: Quid arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas? ↑

348 Disc. 4. ↑

349 Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29: Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας, ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν, πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup. Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever? ↑

350 Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f. ↑