t stands to reason, I think, that this must
be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's
reflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho on,
k.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that
[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of
writing any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book,
after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable
command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a
familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this
language.

On the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four
pages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the
manner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth
Gospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its
identification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable
solutions. To this remark I had appended the following note:

Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
there was no such place [as Sychar [Greek: Suchar]], and apologetic
ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages
in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or
Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. Our
author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f.
Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article,
for these Talmudic references are its main purport._

Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as
they are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish
especially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds
that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary
Review_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,'
to which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2].

I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the
obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the
historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will
most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself
firs