[40] We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one. [↑]
[41] Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff. [↑]
[42] Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase, Theile, and even Fritzsche. [↑]
[43] This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769. [↑]
[44] The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to express doubt, whence probably [v. 6 (Matt.)] and [v. 23 (Luke)] came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. The ἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ. must then be set down to the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus. [↑]
[46] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s. 77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh. 1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm. [↑]
[47] Gabler and Paulus. De Wette. [↑]