[57] Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc. [↑]
[58] Ueber den Lukas, s. 220. [↑]
[59] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc. [↑]
[61] Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to the preceding verses from [v. 9], he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. De Wette also considers that [v. 13] is the only one decidedly out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from the prudent use of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion to [v. 9] and [10–12], without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation. [↑]
[62] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80. [↑]
[65] Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f. [↑]
[66] On the Essenes as contemners of riches (καταφρονητὰς πλούτου), comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311. [↑]