[188] On page 501 occurs a very bad argument. Dr. Moffatt essays to prove from the use of certain Greek words that the Revelation was written by a different author from the Fourth Gospel: among others in the Revelation {erxou} replaces {elthe}". Now, even if this were true, what strength would it have as an argument? Such a trifling variation in language is absolutely valueless.

It is a usage in both the Revelation and the Fourth Gospel to quote in brief the imperative word "come" from some supposed or real speaker (e.g., Rev. XXII. 17). If in each of two modern novels one found this usage half-a-dozen times, but in one the word was "approach," in the other "come near," the person who argued that this difference proved diversity of authorship would be pronounced incapable of reason- [189] ing about such a subject. It is quite possible that the same writer might use one word at one time and the other at a different period of his life.

As regards authorship, the important fact is that a similar brief way of quoting occurs in both books. But what if one book used both "approach" and "come near," the other only "approach"? Now that is the case here. In the Gospel John uses both {erxou} and {elthe}, 1 the former more frequently: in the Revelation he uses {erxou} only. Moreover, the one occurrence of {elthe} is not an example of this special form, but in the middle of a longer sentence after a preceding aorist imperative (IV. 17) {phônêsou . . . kai elthe}. The true state of things then is that both the Revelation and the Fourth Gospel express the idea "come" by the present imperative {erxou}, but once the writer of the Fourth Gospel uses the aorist imperative {elthe} under the [190] influence of a preceding co-ordinated aorist imperative.

Another argument to the same effect is drawn on the same page from the fact that the Revelation uses {aiônios} only once in XIV. 6, "and never connects it with {zôê} as is done several times in the Fourth Gospel. But how does that prove that different authors wrote those two books? Both books use {auônios}, one more frequently than the other. Such observations are mere pedantic trifling, if they are treated as evidence of authorship. Their value is different.

The whole theory regarding the Johannine writings is much on the same level as this, a wire-drawn, artificial and utterly unconvincing series of fanciful suppositions. It comes at the end and is a fair specimen of a work full of learning about modern views, and therefore likely to be very useful to those who desire to study the process of opinion about the New Testament; but the learning is rarely informed by an independent spirit or irradiated by a gleam of insight or sympathy. It is all hard, cold and external. Dr. Moffatt must change his method [191] radically, before he can succeed in doing what he was born to do. He ought to give up reading modern authorities for ten years, and devote that time to thinking and to studying the original authorities. His mind has been obsessed by persistently reading bad historical critics, until he has ceased to be able to distinguish good from bad criticism. He quotes plenty of good books, but he usually prefers the bad to the good. He balances the one against the other, and then misjudges, because he writes and thinks on his subject in an antiquated tone and spirit.

In view of his second edition, I add a few slips which need correction.

Though not observant in such matters, I have noticed a good many false accents or mistaken forms in the Greek words: on page 501 {alêthês} in place of {alêthês, aphienai} for {aphienai, xara} for {xara} on page 500 {idiômasiv} for {idiômasin} on page 269 {emnêsteuomenê} for {emnêsteumenê} and {su} for {su}., 2 on page 28 {eusebeia} for {eusebeia}, on page [192] 33 {aiô} should be {aiô}, on page 34 {êgiasmenon} should be {êgiasmenon}, on page 45 {akroaseis} should be {akroaseis}, on page 67 {euaggelisamenou} should be {euaggelisamenou}, on page 163 {sunergos} should be {sunergos}, on pages 408 and 164 {euromena} in the middle voice should be passive, either {eurêmena} 3 or {euriskomena}, and on page 164 {prosspheilein} should be {prosopheilein}, on page 173 and on page 590 {dikaiosunê} should be {dikaiosunê} on pages 186, 194, {logiôn} should be {logiôn}on page 216 {pisteôs} should be {tisteôs}, on page 482 {agapêtos} should be {agapêtos}, on page 330 {melesin} should be {melesin}, on page 300 {prokoptô} should be {prokoptô}, on page 297 {dialogismos} should be {dialogismos}, on page 590 {ek tivos} should be {ek tinos}, {palaios} should be {palaios}, and {ouranos} should be {ouranos}, on page 565 {ephônêsa} should be {ephônêsa}, on page 588 {psuxikoi} should be {psuxikoi}, on page 585 {antixpristoi} should be {antixristoi}.

[193] On page 163 I fail to understand the statement about James that "Luke fails to record his death". The Author quotes Acts XII. 2; does he assume that this verse is an editorial addition and therefore more correct than Luke's own work? 4 I can hardly believe that he founds his reasoning on such a bare-faced assumption, and suppose that some other meaning, which I cannot fathom, lies in the words.

FOOTNOTES:

1 {erxou} I. 47, xi. 34; {erxesthe}, the plural, I. 40. In both Gospel and Revelation other parts of present {erxomai} and aorist {êlthon} occur all through. Why pick out imperative as alone typical?

2 The very fact that {su} or {egô} requires to be expressed proves that emphasis belongs to them; hence they are necessarily accented, though the oblique cases are enclitic when unemphatic.

3 {eurnmenon} is correctly given on another page, if I rightly remember. The term is unusual; was Dr. Moffatt thinking of the common expression {apaks eirêmenon}? Still {apaks euriskomenon}, though unusual, is a correct Greek expression.

4 I add some further corrections which have occurred or been suggested to me in later reading: –

P.59. I know no homilies of "Ambrosiaster". P.41, note +. Is Gudemann correct ? I know an American scholar Gudeman, but have not seen the book here quote~ P.47. Read {Dêmosthenous}. P.61. Gal. I. 21 f. -- wrong reference. P. 70, 1. 8. Read {apantêsis}. P. 93. Read Pamphylia. P. 55, note. Read Clark. P.110. Read {idou} and {etoimôs}. P. 140. "Codex Amiatinus" is surely of century viii. not vi. P.163. Fugitivarii wrongly used; read fugitivi. P. 164. Read Wortschatz. P.173. Read {oikodomeisthai}. P. 190. Read ~{suntaksis}. P. 210. Read {sôtêros}. P. 221. Read {arxê}. P. 261. Is there good authority for the title "Expositie Euangelica" applied to the work of Ambrose? P. 307. Read {pnikta}. P. 335, Sec. 6. Read {o ge toi}. P. 382. Read auctor. P. 392. Read Rutherfurd and {Ephesô}. P. 536. Read {parousia}. P.572. Read {eav}