[233] Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134. [↑]
[235] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135. [↑]
[236] This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite. [↑]
[237] This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in the mouth of Jesus, supposes nevertheless that it was really in his mind. [↑]
[238] Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f. [↑]
[239] Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310. [↑]
[240] Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61. [↑]