[45]. H. J. Holtzmann, ad loc., and Einleitung, ed. 2, p. 469: cf. Drummond, p. 437 f.
[46]. Pp. 42-6.
[47]. It is denied by Holtzmann, but approved by Westcott.
[48]. For a discussion of the nature of this defilement see Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, p. 56 ff.
[49]. Op. cit. p. 49.
[50]. It is very surprising that Freiherr Hermann von Soden, in a pamphlet published at the end of the year, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Berlin, 1904), p. 9, should deny the existence of local colour in the Fourth Gospel. In proof he mentions some half-dozen points that occur in the Synoptics but not in this Gospel; which only means that it is of a different type from the other three, and does not repeat what was already found in them. And yet, even of these points, several come back in another form. It is true that the Gospel does not describe the healing of a demoniac, but it has many marked allusions to demoniacal possession (see below, p. 134). It is true that it has not the name ‘Sadducees’; it speaks of them rather as ‘chief priests’; but it is well acquainted with their character and policy (see above, p. 126 ff.). The Gospel has no ‘elders,’ but it has ‘rulers’ or members of the Sanhedrin, whose position it perfectly understands. In like manner it has no νομικοί or νομοδιδάσκαλοι, but it is fond of the title ‘Rabbi,’ and it makes pointed reference to Rabbinical training (see below, p. [132]). The whole page of criticism, coming from a writer of such eminence, is most disappointing. Either the statements are very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on the authorship of the Gospel. Why should not an Apostle break off somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse, or glide imperceptibly from narrative into comment? That is just what St. Paul does, as we shall see (p. [168], below).
The truth is that the criticism of the Fourth Gospel on the liberal side has become largely conventional; one writer after another repeats certain stereotyped formulae without testing them. It is high time that they were really tested and confronted with the facts.
[51]. On the application of this penalty in the lifetime of Christ, see above, p. [115].
[52]. Sanhedr. 97 a.
[53]. Dial. c. Tryph. §8, cf. 110.