point to pa.s.sages in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or Sichar);' see Neubauer _La Geographie 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.

[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133 sq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.]

[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).]

[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).]

[19:1] II. p. 423 sq.

[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht fur nothig gefunden, den Taufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistes] zu unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).'

[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124 sq.]

[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459.

[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which Dr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileides, kan Glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermenea].

[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets were inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been worth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After having been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is cut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).]

[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123 sq.]

[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.]

[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.]

[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.]

[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57.

[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.).

[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135.

[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq.

[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's conclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace with its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to which he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the whole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's critical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the suggestion, that the name of the fabulist aesop is derived from Solomon's "_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33: _Die Spruche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq.

[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which depends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of Celsus (II. p. 228), etc.

[25:3] [See further, p. 141.]

[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.]

[27:1] II. p. 484.

[27:2] II. p. 487 sq.

[27:3] II. p. 486.

[27:4] II. p. 487 sq.

[27:5] II. p. 489.

[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490.

[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv.

[30:1] II. p. 492.

[30:2] II. p. 492.

[30:3] II. p. 492.

[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations from the second, with which I have compared it in all the pa.s.sages here quoted.

[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27.

[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432.

[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these two pa.s.sages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Caesarea, in the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics, I ought to say, are my own, in all the three pa.s.sages quoted.

[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6 (I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition (p. xxi).]

[35:1] I. p. 435.

[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]

[35:3] II. p. 320.

[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p.

318).]

[35:5] I. p. 483.

[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of this expression see below, p. 183 sq.]

[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]

[35:8] II. p. 322.

[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]

[35:10] II. p. 323.

[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']

[35:12] II. p. 164.