writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and
geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he
condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least
likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of Sychar and
Shechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring
to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes
this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a
fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight
knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound
[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam
signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin
_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?
and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark
on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress
(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not
unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence
transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate
upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,
ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases
ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do
not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn
his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own
armour is gaping at every joint.

But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.

Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth