[56] Dr. Moffatt admits that the Fourth Gospel contains much local knowledge and circumstantial detail, but denies that the presence of these "can suffice to prove that the author had been a Palestinian apostle" (which no one would affirm without much more evidence). All that one can infer is that, so far as this kind of evidence goes, he knew Palestine well. The Author asserts that "literary annals abound with cases of an imaginative historical reconstruction, where the author is known to have had no direct acquaintance with the countries in which his scenes are laid". His cases are all taken from modern literature.

In the first place, however, he neglects to observe that this seeking after correct historical reconstruction is a modern development, and is [57] wholly unknown and undreamed of in ancient time. Moreover, if the supposed Asia Minor author (or authors) of the Fourth Gospel had set about the task of reading up Palestinian geography and custom with the view of imparting local colour and verisimilitude to the book, he would have done not merely what no other among the ancients ever thought of, and what was not demanded by the literary canons of his time: he would also have been guilty of deliberate and conscious simulation of a false personality. In seeking to impart this local colour so as to give to the book the appearance of having been written by a native of Palestine, he would show an anxiety to pretend that some Palestinian Jew had written the book. Thus all the naturalness and unconscious honesty which are claimed for the anonymous author (or authors) are sacrificed, and he is degraded to the rank of a conscious and deliberate forger. Dr. Moffatt does not, however, think he was a forger, but that he was acting from high motives and with unfeigned truth.

In the second place, even as regards modern [58] times, I should desiderate much more proof than Dr. Moffatt offers that successful "imaginative historical reconstruction" in respect of geographical detail is so common as he asserts. I have not found it in those cases where I am capable of judging. Let us take Dr. Moffatt's examples one by one: "'Gil Bias de Santillane,' for all its masterly delineation of Spanish manners, was composed by a man who had never been in Spain". I have not been in Spain, and am unable to judge how far there is exhibited any proofs of such geographical accuracy about minute details as is found in the Fourth Gospel; but I do know that people are very apt to take and repeat such assertions on credit without any first-hand knowledge of the subject. It is also certain that, if Le Sage shows such local accuracy, he must have studied carefully before he became able to impart it to his book. But Dr. Moffatt asserts only that he gives us a "masterly delineation of Spanish manners". How far is this delineation his own? How far is it:.taken from:;the Spanish author whose ideas and plan he adopted, and [59] from whom he borrowed some of the adventures which his hero meets with? How far is it due to acquaintance with Spaniards in France, and with the typical Spaniard of literature (as in Don Quixote "), a strongly marked figure easily imitated by a writer so skilful as Le Sage? There are many questions to put and to answer before the argument from "Gil Blas" can be admitted to have even the remotest bearing on the Fourth Gospel.

Dr. Moffatt next mentions Shakespeare’s Italian plays. In every case Shakespeare had an Italian story to work on: he took a printed tale, and gave it dramatic form: he was aided by his knowledge of many other Italian stories and of Italian history. Moreover, Shakespeare is an exceptional genius, and it is not a fair argument that, because he could do something, therefore the anonymous writer (or writers) who made up the Fourth Gospel, but who impressed his own contemporaries so little that he was not remembered or even noticed by them, must have been able to do all that Shakespeare did. And then is Shakespeare so accurate in minute [60] geographical detail as the Fourth Gospel is? I know no proof of this, and should be glad to learn from Dr. Moffatt. What about the sea-coast of Bohemia?

Defoe is Dr. Moffatt's third example. I have not been in Robinson Crusoe's island, and cannot therefore judge of his geographical accuracy; but so far as I can remember from time long past the character of his stories, he is most accurate where he has personal knowledge of the situation and localities; and he deliberately set himself to work up an imitation of true fact and life. He was not trying to teach the world; he was trying to cheat the world into believing that his stories were true. He pretends and says that they were true. There is no analogy between his method and Dr. Moffatt's theory of the making up of the New Testament books, unless he admits that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was a conscious and intentional forger after the style in which Defoe deliberately palmed off invented stories as true.

This subject is a big one and is not to be lightly dismissed, as Dr. Moffatt dismisses it, [61] with a few remote, insufficient and uncertain analogies. His treatment of it is audaciously light and trivial. Why does he not take some reasonably analogous case that can be tested and proved? Is it because there are none that suit his argument? Take the case of Walter Scott. Here you have an author who is admittedly one of the most correct of romance writers. You find him marvellously accurate in the Border country, where he was thoroughly at home: not quite so minutely accurate in Argyleshire and the north or central Highlands, but still very accurate: in "The Antiquary," the scene of which lies in Forfarshire, he makes the sun set in the North Sea: in "The Heart of Midlothian" he alludes to Roseneath as an island: in "The Pirate" he drew some geographical colour from experience on a voyage among the Orkney and the Shetland Islands: 1 in England he is much less vividly accurate in geographical detail: in Switzerland " Anne of Geierstein" is [62] admittedly and demonstrably inaccurate: in "Count Robert of Paris" and in "The Talisman" there is the minimum of local colour or detail.

I add a quotation, bearing on this subject, from a great authority. Ranke's "course had been determined, in early life, by 'Quentin Durward'. The shock of the discovery that Scott's Lewis the Eleventh was inconsistent with the original in Commynes made him resolve that his object thenceforth should be above all things to follow without swerving, and in stern subordination and surrender, the lead of his authorities." I quote from Lord Acton's Inaugural Lecture at Cambridge in "Lectures on Modern History," p.19.

Is not Dr. Moffatt confusing between the artistic ability to give a vivid impression of imaginative reality, and the possession of real geographical knowledge of details that can be tried and demonstrated? Could Shakespeare's foreign scenes stand being tested in that prosaic way by the map? Dr. Moffatt knows very well that they could not. Deduct from them what [63] belongs to universal human nature, and how much remains of the specifically and characteristically Italian? The sea-coast of Bohemia is the scene of as true, human, real, vivid life and action as Venice or Padua or London; and that is all that the poet sought.

This paragraph in Dr. Moffatt's book is simply a caricature of historical reality and a travesty of historical argument.

FOOTNOTES:

1 My friend Professor II. J. O. Grierson, who knows the Shetlands well, for the Fitful Head forms part of his family property, tells me that there are in "The Pirate" numerous geographical slips.