once_
beiden Apostel gleiches Namens, | distinguishes John the Baptist
Judas, sorgfaeltig unterscheidet | by the appellation [Greek: ho
(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas | baptistes], whilst he carefully
naeher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24; | distinguishes the two disciples
21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus, | of the name of Judas, and always
nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus, | speaks of the Apostle Peter as
nie Simon allein nennt (s. Sec. 96, | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but
Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht fuer noethig | rarely as 'Simon' only.
gefunden, den Taeufer Johannes |
von dem gleichnamigen Apostel |
Johannes _auch nur ein einziges |
Mal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho |
baptistes] zu unterscheiden |
(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.). |

Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to
the other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had
traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two
particular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have
stumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than
once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New
Testament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last
and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels,
though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant
variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember
'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have
himself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his
exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This
explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably
evident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_
once,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all
the four editions.

But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further
removed from the possibility of detection. I had called attention
[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author
had written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3,
4)--

This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel,
and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1].

whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the
passage was genuine; and I had pointed out that th