Of the Apocalypse I say:  “The language in which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New Testament;” [28:1] and further on:  “The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of Galilee.” [28:2] Of the Gospel I say:  “Instead of the Hebraistic Greek and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world,” &c. [28:4] In another place I say:  “The language in which the Gospel is written, as we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels.” [28:5] I believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other, and that they do not exclude Hebraisms.  The views expressed might be supported by numberless authorities.  As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of “wholly ignoring” the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived, I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works:  “The difference of the language, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, of course, in a high degree remarkable ...  As regards grammar, the Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek.”  He argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written otherwise.  “The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional emancipations from the rules of grammar” (!), in imitation of ancient prophetic style.  Presently he proceeds:  “If, then, on the one hand, the Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and Palestinian.”  Luthardt maintains “that the style of the Gospel betrays the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek,” but the force which he intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the conclusion at which he finally arrives, that “the linguistic gulf between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable.” [29:1] This result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic character