[243] Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff. [↑]
[244] Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A. [↑]
[245] Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza. [↑]
[246] Whitby, Annot. in loc. [↑]
[247] Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm. [↑]
[248] See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says, omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly! [↑]
[249] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10. [↑]
[250] Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357. [↑]
[251] Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402. [↑]
[252] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the [[494]]Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them. But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us? The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus. [↑]