misprints which our author pleads, because they must have baffled far
higher powers of divination than mine. Thus I found [124:2] the author
stating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once distinguishes John the
Baptist by the appellation [Greek: ho baptistês],' [124:3] whereas, as a
matter of fact, he never does so; and comparing the whole sentence with
a passage in Credner [124:4], to which the author refers in his
footnote, I found that it presented a close parallel, as the reader will
see:--
Während der Verfasser die | He [the author] _only once_
beiden Apostel gleiches Namens, | distinguishes John the Baptist
Judas, sorgfältig unterscheidet | by the appellation [Greek: ho
(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas | baptistês], whilst he carefully
näher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24; | distinguishes the two disciples
21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus, | of the name of Judas, and always
nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus, | speaks of the Apostle Peter as
nie Simon allein nennt (s. § 96, | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but
Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht für nöthig | rarely as 'Simon' only.
gefunden, den Täufer Johannes |
von dem gleichnamigen Apostel |
Johannes _auch nur ein einziges |
Mal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho |
baptistês] zu unterscheiden |
(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.). |
Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to
the other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had
traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two
particular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have
stumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than
once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New
Testament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last
and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels,
though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant
variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember
'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have
himself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his
exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This
explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably
evident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_
once,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all
the four editions.
But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further
removed from the possibility of detection. I had called attention
[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author
had written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3,
4)--
This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel,
and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1].
whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the
passage was genuine; and I had pointed out that the last words stood
'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the
passage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been
suffered to remain.
In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:--
The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol.
i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, 'and it is argued
that it was probably a later interpolation [126:2].'
To this the following note is appended:--
I altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition, as Dr
Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
exaggeration, but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness,
reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive
the absence of the words given above.
This omission runs through four editions.
But more perplexing still is the author's use of language.
The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenæus,
where this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer
to the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my
first article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction
between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct
narrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might
very well be Irenæus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out
that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in
the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found
out his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in
its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives
in his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his
language. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1)
That there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all,
or that Irenæus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp.
326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no
ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of
Papias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned
myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when
I shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first
point alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in his
reply that his meaning was the same throughout, that he knew all the
while Irenæus must be quoting from some one else, and that he 'did what
was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction.'
[127:2] Why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were
direct? Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in
Irenæus containing quotations, did he add, 'These are all direct
quotations by Irenæus, as is most certainly that which we are now
considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way?' [127:3] Why
in his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recognition of the
oblique construction, did he withdraw all these supposed parallels,
which, if his opinion was unchanged, still remained as good for his
purpose (whatever that purpose might be) as they had ever been? Further
discussion on this point would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any
reader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and
more especially to compare the fourth [128:1] with the earlier editions,
that he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, except
that which I and others besides myself [128:2] have put upon his words,
was natural. The author has declared his meaning, but I could only judge
by his language.
I now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's
reply; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order
adopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder.
1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I spoke
disparagingly of his scholarship [128:3]; and in reply he says that the
criticism in which I have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction
of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.' [128:4] I cannot help
thinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view; but let
that pass. If the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my
article, he will find that, so far from occupying the main part of it on
points of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under
discussion, as the author seems to hint, I have taken up about
two-thirds of a page only [128:5] with such matters. In the other
instances which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument
for the time being at some vital point. It would have been possible to
multiply examples, if examples had been needed. I might have quoted, for
instance, such renderings as [Greek: katabas peripateitô] 'come down let
him walk about [129:1];' or [Greek: Iousta tis en hêmin esti
Surophoinikissa, to genos Chananitis, hês to Thugatrion k.t.l.] 'Justa,
who is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose
daughter' etc. [129:2] Both these renderings survive to the fourth
edition.
I must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes,
though only a few words will be necessary. I do not see that he has
gained anything by sheltering himself behind others, when he is
obviously in the wrong. Not a legion of Tischendorfs, for instance, can
make [Greek: epangellomenon] signify 'has promised,' [129:3] though it
is due to Tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation
he has seen through the meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened
an error upon himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done.
And in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the
responsibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant
than the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a scholar,
having translated _quem caederet_ [129:4], 'whom he mutilates,' could
have brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' [129:5]. I am not at
all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with
having unduly depreciated his scholarship.
But our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth
establishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel sure that, if he
had been dealing with some indifferent matter, as for instance some
question of classical literature, he would not have received any more
lenient treatment from independent reviewers; and I do not see why the
greater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for
immunity from critical examination. It does not seem to me to be a light
matter that an author assuming, as the author of _Supernatural Religion_
does, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, should
betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. But in the present
case there was an additional reason why attention should be called to
these defects. It was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of
the author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the
public, and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not
entitled.
2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality
with which the work entitled _Supernatural Religion_ had been credited.
And here I would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's
reviewers than with the author himself. I can understand how he should
omit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity.
It appeared from the book itself, and it has become still more plain
from the author's Reply, that he regards 'apologists' as persons from
whom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments therefore he need
not for the most part concern himself. But the fact remains that the
reader has had an _ex parte_ statement presented to him, while he has
been assured that the whole case is laid before him.
Of this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. To these
our author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, I believe that the
present article has entirely justified my allegation. Of Papias,
Hegesippus, and Justin, I shall have occasion to speak in subsequent
articles. At present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to
what Dr Westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer, and ask
readers to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case
impartially before them.
Several of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St. John. Of these
our author has taken exception more especially to three.
As regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because he has quoted
my own words, and I am well content that they should tell their own
tale. If our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself, and
irrelevant to the direct purpose of the work,' [131:1] I venture to
think that discerning readers will take a different view. I had directed
attention [131:2] to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.
xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34) as implying other visits to Jerusalem which
these Gospels do not themselves record, and therefore as refuting the
hypothesis that our Lord's ministry was only of a single year's
duration, and was exercised wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood
until the closing visit to Jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on
the arbitrary assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete
and continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative on
this fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the Synoptists
give no continuous chronology in the history of our Lord's ministry
between the baptism and the passion; the incidents were selected in the
first instance (we may suppose) for purposes of catechetical
instruction, and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject,
sometimes (though incidentally) by sequence of time. In St. John, on the
other hand, the successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebræ of
the chronological backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account
of Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure even
here that the vertebræ are absolutely continuous; many festivals may
have been omitted; the ministry of Christ may have extended over a much
longer period, as indeed Irenæus asserts that it did [131:3]; but the
three passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three
years at the least.
The second point has reference to the diction of the fourth Gospel, as
compared with the Apocalypse [131:4]. Here I am glad to find that there
is less difference of opinion between us than I had imagined. If our
author does not greatly differ from Luthardt's estimate of the language,
neither do I [132:1]. On the other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as
I am aware) nobody has denied, that there is a marked difference between
the Apocalypse and the Gospel, in respect of diction; only it is
contended that two very potent influences must be taken into account
which will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of
the two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of the one
book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong
Hebraic colouring, which we should not expect to find in a historical
narrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time separates the two works.
The Apocalypse was written, according to the view which our author
represents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics,' about
A.D. 68, 69 [132:2]. It marks the close of what we may call the
_Hebraic_ period of St John's life--_i.e._, the period which (so far as
we can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history) he
had spent chiefly in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The
Gospel on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the
last years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or
more probably dictated) at the end of the _Hellenic_ period, after an
interval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had lived at
Ephesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our author appears to be
astonished that Luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the Apocalypse
as not arising out of ignorance, but as 'intentional emancipations from
the rules of grammar.' Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must
be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's
reflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho ôn,
k.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that
[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of
writing any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book,
after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable
command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a
familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this
language.
On the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four
pages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the
manner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth
Gospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its
identification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable
solutions. To this remark I had appended the following note:
Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
there was no such place [as Sychar [Greek: Suchar]], and apologetic
ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages
in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or
Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. Our
author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f.
Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article,
for these Talmudic references are its main purport._
Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as
they are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish
especially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds
that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary
Review_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,'
to which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2].
I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the
obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the
historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will
most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself
first. I am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person
who penned certain sentences in _Supernatural Religion_. I am not a
little perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he
would lay down; for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt
language, of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others
with 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation
upon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsification,'
with 'disingenuousness' [134:1] and other grave moral offences of the
same kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that offences of
this class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or
the grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore obliged to ask whether he is
not imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe
himself, when he objects to what I have said. Nevertheless I will
apologize; but I cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to
withdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of
proceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it
another which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I saw in his
text the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no such
place,' [134:2] and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a
reference to an article by an eminent Hebraist devoted to showing that
such a place is mentioned several times in the Talmud, I could draw no
other conclusion than that he had not read the article in question, or
(as I might have added), having read it, had forgotten its contents. The
manner in which references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have
shown in my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this
inference. His own explanation however is quite different.--
My statement is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
as Sychar--I ought to have added, 'except by apologists, who never
admit anything'--but I thought that in saying, 'and apologetic
ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty,' I had
sufficiently excepted apologists, and indicated that many
assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose.
Certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added; for no reader
could have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be
understood with this all-important reservation. Unfortunately however
this explanation is not confined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it
is adopted by M. Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position)
would altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who
nevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, without
considering whether it will or will not tend to establish the
credibility of the Evangelist.
But after all, the really important question for the reader is not what
this or that person thinks on this question, but what are the facts. And
here I venture to say that, when our author speaks of 'assertions and
conjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's article, such language is quite
misleading. The points which the Talmudical passages quoted by him
establish are these:--
(1) A place called 'Suchar,' or 'Sychar,' is mentioned in the Talmud.
Our author speaks of 'some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat
similar, but not identical, name.' But the fact is, that the word
[Greek: Suchar], if written in Hebrew letters, would naturally take one
or other of the two forms which we find in the Talmud, [Hebrew: Sukh'r]
(Suchar) or [Hebrew: Sykh'r] (Sychar). In other words, the
transliteration is as exact as it could be. It would no doubt be
possible to read the former word 'Socher,' and the latter 'Sicher,'
because the vowels are indeterminate within these limits. But so far as
identity was possible, we have it here.
(2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of 'Sychar,' but of
'Ayin-Sychar,' _i.e._, 'the Well of Sychar.'
(3) The 'Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing
country. This is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of
the place in the two principal Talmudical passages where it appears,
_Baba Kamma_ 82b, _Menachoth_ 64b. It is there stated that on one
occasion, when the lands in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid
waste by war, and no one knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal
offering, the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they
were obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the Well of
Sychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the interview with the
Samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn,
unbroken by boundary or hedge'[136:1]--as it is described by a modern
traveller; and indeed the prospect before Him suggests to our Lord, as
we may well suppose, the image which occurs in the conversation with the
disciples immediately following--'Lift up your eyes, and look on the
fields; for they are white already to harvest.' [136:2] It is true that
the Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin-Sychar;'
but all the circumstances agree. It was just from such a country as this
(neither too near nor too far distant for the notices) that the
Pentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency.
The reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge for himself
whether the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no
such place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. He will form his own
opinion whether a writer, who deliberately ignores these facts, because
they are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything,' is
likely to form an impartial judgment.
The identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent opinion has
been tending, is a question of less importance. Notwithstanding the
difficulty respecting the initial _Ain_ in the latter word, an
identification which has commended itself to Oriental scholars like
Ewald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible. I
venture to suggest that the initial Ain of 'Askar' may be explained by
supposing the word to be a contraction for _Ayin-Sychar_, the 'Well of
Sychar.' This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic word
would furnish another example of a process which is common where one
language is superposed upon another, _e.g._, Charter-house for
Chartreuse.