[106] Muir and Weir, Life of Mohammed, ed. 1912, p. xlii.
[108] Id. p. xxviii. Contrast the pronouncements of Palmer, Kuenen, and Nicholson, cited in the author's History of Freethought, 3rd ed. i, 250.
[109] Josephus, Antiq. xx, 5, § 1; Bel. Jud., vii, 11; Dio Cassius, lxix; Orosius, vii, 12.
[110] E.g. the orthodox Ewald, Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit, 3te Ausg. p. 31 note.
[111] "Stupidity" is ascribed to him by Blass (Entstehung, p. 8), who on his own principles has no right whatever to reject such a "tradition."
[112] Compare with this avowal of an orthodox scholar, Mill's assumption of the total absence of genius in Palestine apart from Jesus.
[113] See the collection of opinions in Dr. Charles Taylor's The Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels, 1899, pp. 15-19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 39, 42, etc.
[114] These logia, it should be noted, are always ascribed to "Ies." The full name Iesous is never given, and there is no cognomen.
[115] "Many," says Blass (Entstehung, p. 11), may mean 3, 4, 5, or even more.
[116] Codices A and C preface this with "And turning to his disciples, he said."
[117] Strauss speaks of it as having been "firmly established." Das Leben Jesu, Einl. § 9, end.
[118] Some New Testament Problems, 1898, pp. 197-98.
[121] Elsewhere (p. 200) Mr. Wright speaks of the traditions as "circulated in an oral form from very early times"; but he does not appear to mean this in the natural sense.
[124] Would it? For Loisy it is stamped with Jewish exclusiveness. The "dog" merely gets a compassionate crumb.
[127] See Christianity and Mythology, 2nd ed. p. 388.
[128] The "Arise, let us go hence," at the end of ch. 14, is another interpolation which has no meaning in the context.
[139] Jésus et la tradition évangélique, 1910, pp. 9, 12, 36, 40, 56, 57, 99, 102, 105, 113.
[140] So, for instance, Wernle: "On the basis of these oldest sources we can write no biography, no so-called Life of Jesus" (Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, 1905, p. 82).
[144] It should be remembered that the Gospels do not specify Nazareth, but speak simply of "his own country" (patris). Professor Burkitt, recognizing the mass of difficulties in regard to Nazareth, suggests that that name is a "literary error," and that the patris of Jesus was Chorazin (Proc. of Brit. Acad. vol. v, 1912, pp. 17-18).