Freethought Archives > Walter R. Cassels > A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays

[I. FOOTNOTES]

[1:1] Originally published in the Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1875.

[4:1] On the Canon, p. 65.

[4:2] Ibid. p. 61, note 2.

[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this interpretation is one from Papias' Exposition."

[4:4] Reliq. Sacrae, i. p. 10 f.

[4:5] Lehre Pers. Christ, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.

[5:1] Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.

[5:2] Synops. Evang., Proleg. xxxi.

[5:3] Komm. Ev. des Johannes, p. 6 f.

[5:4] Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh. p. 116 f.

[5:5]Basilides, p. 110 f.

[5:6] Zeitschr. für 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 passage 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 ho logos edêlou, "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 Maranus renders the words "… scripturam declarare," and Otto "… effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is kata korrhês propêlakizein, 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, all' hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson auto kai tên allên, with a passage in Athenagoras, alla tois men kan kata korrhês prospêlakizôsi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês 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 passage 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 assurance 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 "… dass er nie Joh. dem Taüfer wie der Synoptiker den Beinamen ho Baptistês giebt" (Einl. N. T. p. 230), and to Bleek, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (Beiträge, 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 passage.

[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.

[17:1] Canon, p. 255 f.

[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, 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 passage 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 passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage 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.

[28:5] Ibid. ii, p. 413.

[29:1] Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang. 1874, pp. 204-7.

[29:2] Einl. N. T. p. 625.

[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point out its existence, as, for instance, S. R. ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it had already been applied to Christianity in N. T. writings before the composition of that work.

[30:2] S. R. ii. 421.

[30:3] Contemporary Review, 12 f. [ibid. p. 17 f.]

[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."

[31:2] S. R. 421 f.

[32:1] Works, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; Horae et Talm. p. 938.

[32:2] Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv. p. 256, Anm. 1.

[32:3] Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh., umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.

[32:4] Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N. T. i. 3, p. 84.

[32:5] Einl. N. T. ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).

[32:6] Bibelwerk, iv. 219.

[32:7] Die Zeugnisse, p. 21.

[32:8] Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean, i. p. 475 f.

[32:9] Einl. N. T. p. 211.

[32:10] Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1856, p. 240 ff.

[32:11] Die Joh. Schriften, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.; cf. Gesch. v. Isr. v. p. 348, Anm. 1.

[32:12] Das Ev. Joh. p. 107.

[32:13] Comm. Ev. n. Joh. p. 188 f.

[33:1] Comm. Ev. des Joh. i. p. 577 f.

[33:2] Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.

[33:3] Die Joh. Schr. i. p. 181, Anm. 1.

[33:4] Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 92.

[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with El Askar, &c." Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, p. 93, note 1.

[34:1] Life of Christ, i. p. 206, note 1.

[34:2] La Géographie du Tulmud, p. 170.

[34:3] Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 1395 f.

[36:1] Bampton Lect. 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.

[36:2] S. R. i. p. 61 ff.

[37:1] Contemporary Review, p. 19 [ibid. p. 26 f.]

[37:2] Three Essays on Religion, p. 216 f.

[38:1] Three Essays on Religion, p. 234.

[38:2] Ibid. p. 219.

[39:1] S. R. ii. p. 477.
 


Return to Chapter I     Table of Contents

HTML © 2002 -