Dismissing him as having served his turn in illustrating compendiously the temper which survives in Unitarian as in Trinitarian traditionalism, we may conclude this preliminary survey with a comment on the proposition that we should take the "verdict of scholars." It has been put by men, themselves scholars in other fields, whom to bracket with Mr. Sinclair would be an impertinence. But I have always been puzzled by their attitude. They proceed upon three assumptions, which are all alike delusions. The first is that there is a consensus of scholars on the details of this problem. The second is that the professional scholars have a command of a quite recondite knowledge as regards the central issue. The third is that there is such a thing as professional expertise in the diagnosis of Gods, Demigods, and real Founders in religious history. Once more, the nature of the problem has not been realized. Let us take first the case of a real scholar in the strictest sense of the term, Professor Gustaf Dalman, of Leipzig, author of "The Words of Jesus, considered in the light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language." [36] To me, Professor Dalman appears to be an expert of high competence, alike in Hebrew and Aramaic--a double qualification possessed by very few of those to whose "verdict" we are told to bow. By his account few previous experts in the same field have escaped bad miscarriages, as a handful of excerpts will show:-- M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, 1896, still holds fast to the traditional opinion that even Ezra had an Aramaic version of the Tora. In this he is mistaken. H. Laible, in Dalman-Laible's Jesus Christ in the Talmud, etc., incorrectly refers it [the phrase "bastard of a wedded wife"] to Jesus. The discussion treats merely of the definition of the term "bastard." Adequate proof for all three parts of this assertion [A. Neubauer's as to the use of Aramaic in parts of Palestine] is awanting. F. Blass ... characterizes as Aramaisms idioms which in some cases are equally good Hebraisms, and in others are pure Hebraisms and not Aramaisms at all. P. W. Schmiedel ... does not succeed in reaching any really tenable separation of Aramaisms and Hebraisms. Resch entirely abandons the region of what is linguistically admissible.... And the statement of the same writer that this ... "belongs very specially to the epic style of narration in the Old Testament" is incomprehensible. The idioms discussed above ... show at once the incorrectness of Schmiedel's contention that the narrative style of the Gospels and the Acts is the best witness of the Greek that was spoken among the Jews. The fact is that the narrative sections of the Synoptists have more Hebrew features than the discourses of Jesus communicated by them.