[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sut.—Your reviewer in the
appreciative description" of Dr. Dearmer's book has perhaps missed a rather important aspect with which I was forcibly struck : the strength of the argh- ment lies in the fact that Dr. Dearmer has used only such New Testament criticism as is accepted by the most cautious and conservative authorities. It would have been easy to make a stronger case by using the conclusions of more advanced scholars ; but this he has, so far as I have observed, scrupulously avoided doing ; and therein lies much of the strength of his position.
Your reviewer, for instance, notices the saying, " Good were it for this man if he had never been born." But Dr. Dearmer takes no side as to its meaning ; he merely_ points out that the Greek literal meaning is that it would have been good for Jesus Christ if Judas had not been born, and adds that most commentators think that the literal meaning must be a mistake. Nothing could be fairer. It would have been quite justifiable to go further and say that the obscurity of the Greek is due to some over-condensation ; and that our Lord
did actually utter the very natural exclamation that it would have been much better for Himself and His work if there had been no such person as Judas Iscariot.
Snell, points are important, because, as your reviewer indi- cates, the honour of Christ is involved in such points of exegesis, and very scrupulous fairness, such as the writer has
used, is therefore needed.—I am, Sir, &c., ANGLICANUS.
Previous page
