[16] The Rev. A. Wright (N. T. Problems, 1898, p. 15) pronounces it "completely unchronological." Sanday acquiesces (id., p. 177). [17] Such details, imposed on an otherwise empty narrative, suggest a pictorial basis, as does the account of the Baptist. Strauss cites the Hebrew myth-precedent of the calling of Elisha from the plough by Elijah. [18] Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1905, p. 51. [19] Id. p. 47. [20] Id. p. 51. [21] Id. p. 52. [22] Note the identity of terms, euergeton in Acts (x, 38), euergetesas in Diodorus. [23] Christianity and Mythology, 2nd ed. p. 441 sq.; Pagan Christs, 2nd ed. pp. 229-236. A notably effective criticism is passed on the thesis in Prof. W. B. Smith's Ecce Deus, p. 177 sq. Mr. Sinclair, of course, does not dream of meeting such replies. [24] What else is signified by Acts iii, 18; xvii, 3? [25] Dr. W. B. Smith sees in the story a mere symbolizing of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. This may very well be the case. [26] Dr. Flinders Petrie even infers a "late" reference to the Virgin-Birth. The Growth of the Gospels, 1910, p. 86. This Loisy rejects. [27] See the useful work of Mr. A. J. Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for English Readers, 1893. [28] Yet B. Weiss had contended (Manual, Eng. tr. ii, 224) that Mark ii, 24 ff., 28, "must be taken from a larger collection of sayings in which the utterances of Jesus respecting the keeping of the Sabbath were put together (Matt. xii, 2-8)." [29] Cp. Dr. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 1902, p. xiv. [30] Work cited, p. 94. [31] Manual of Introd. to the N. T., Eng. tr. 1888, ii, 261. [32] Einleitung, p. 51. [33] Id. p. 49. [34] Some N. T. Problems, 1898, p. 176. [35] I have wasted a good deal of time in reading and in confuting the Baconians, but only in one or two of them have I met with any etymologies. Their doctrine had no such origin, and in no way rests on etymologies. Not once have I seen in their books an appeal to anti-theological bias, and hardly ever an emendation, though there are plenty of "forced parallels." Nor are etymologies primary elements in any form of the myth theory. Mr. Sinclair seems to "unpack his mouth with words" in terms of a Shakespearean formula. [36] Eng. trans. by Prof. D. M. Kay, 1902. [37] Wellhausen notably does--Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1905, pp. 39-41. Dr. R. H. Charles, who in his masterly introduction to the Assumption of Moses indicates so many blunders of German scholars, may be reckoned quite able to criticize Dalman in his turn. [38] Cp. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 1909, pp. 65-66. [39] Rev. A. Wright, Some New Testament Problems, p. 212. [40] Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 1898, p. 35. [41] Die Entstehung und der Charakter unserer Evangelien, 1907, p. 9.