._
the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
altogether to notice others."

In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--

"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 f. Our
author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
[30:3]

I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]

My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception