[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 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 [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 passage 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 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 Tauefer wie der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek:  ho Baptistes] giebt” (Einl.  N.T. p. 230), and to Bleek, who says, “nicht ein einziges Mal” (Beitraege, p. 178, and Einl.  N.T. p. 150), which could not be misread.