[63] Cambridge Magazine, Feb. 3, 1917, p. 289. [↑]
[64] G.B. v, 45 sq., 223; P.C. 364, 373–4. [↑]
[65] P.C. 112 sq., 131 sq., 140, 142, 144, 352, 362–4, 368. [↑]
[66] C.M. 354. I find that Volkmar (there cited) had in one of his later works put the theory that the traitor, whom he held to be an invention of the later Paulinists, would be named Juda as typifying Judaism. The myth-theory is not necessarily committed to the whole of this thesis, but the objections of Brandt (Die evang. Gesch. pp. 15–18) seem to me invalid. He always reasons on the presupposition of a central historicity, and argues as if Mark could not have been interpolated at the points where Judas is named. [↑]