" [72:1] He goes on to state
additional grounds for disbelief.
_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
(_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
of the letters cannot be ascertained.
Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly
unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.
He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour,
and characterises it as "equally unfortunate.
Pages:
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110