[55] Natürliche Geschichte, 2, 174. [↑]
[56] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 473; Olshausen, s. 302. [↑]
[57] This even Paulus, s. 474, and Olshausen, s. 303, find surprising. [↑]
[58] It is the narrative of the manner in which Apollonius of Tyana unmasked a demon (empusa), vit. Ap. iv. 35; ap. Baur, s. 145. [↑]
[59] Ut sup. s. 128. When, however, he accounts for this incorrect supplement of Luke’s by supposing that his informant, being engaged in the vessel, had remained behind, and thus had missed the commencement of the scene with the demoniac, this is too laboured an exercise of ingenuity, and presupposes the antiquated opinion, that there was the most immediate relation possible between the evangelical histories and the facts which they report. [↑]
[62] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 332. According to Eisenmenger, 2, 447 ff., the Jews held that demons generally had a predilection for impure places, and in Jalkut Rubeni f. x. 2. (Wetstein) we find this observation: Anima idololatrarum, quæ venit a spiritu immundo, vocatur porcus. [↑]