[51] Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff. [↑]
[52] In the Essay quoted, s. 768. [↑]
[53] Thus, e.g., Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315. [↑]
[54] Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829), drittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38. [↑]
[55] De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 171. Gramberg, Grundzüge einer Engellehre des A. T., § 5, in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f. [↑]
[56] Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg. [↑]
[57] Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge. Kuinöl, in Matt. [↑]
[58] In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr. Græc. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f. [↑]
[60] Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation, designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature. But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations. [↑]