[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.
[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.
[5:6] _Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.
[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.
[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.
[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.
[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part itself.
[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._ p. 4, n. 4.
[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this pa.s.sage after the example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within brackets.
[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.
[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.
[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.
[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
[11:2] The translation in Scholten"s work is substantially the same as Tischendorf"s, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is treated as a contemporary.
[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.
[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho logos edelou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that Prudentius Mara.n.u.s renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to pa.s.sages from the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next pa.s.sage is [Greek: kata korrhes propelakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all"
hostis se rhapisei epi ten dexian sou siagona, strepson auto kai ten allen], with a pa.s.sage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata korrhes prospelakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tes kephales meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after "side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The pa.s.sage from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the a.s.surance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
[14:1] 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.
[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, but also to _De Wette_, who has "... da.s.s er _nie_ Joh. dem Taufer wie der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistes] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._ p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beitrage_, p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.
[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.
[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above reference, but does not quote the pa.s.sage.
[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the pa.s.sage relative to Matthias.
[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.
[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two pa.s.sages, pointed out by Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.
[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, -- 106.
[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.
[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].
[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]
[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].
[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.
[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]
[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.
[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.
[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].
[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly suppose" that "I had read the pa.s.sage to which I refer."
[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that such a pa.s.sage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the pa.s.sage Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the allusion to Paul"s teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].
[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].
[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.
[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.
[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.