[1] All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion. [↑]
[2] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 320. [↑]
[3] Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s. 265. [↑]
[4] Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f. [↑]
[6] Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244. [↑]
[7] Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f. [↑]
[8] See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242 f. [↑]
[9] Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy, [2 Sam. i. 17 ff.] as קֶשֶׁת and the denomination of the Messiah as צֶמַח. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference of υἰὸς τοῦ ἀ. to the passage in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.) [↑]