530 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



took the side of Rome in the factions that prevailed could not be 

 subject to the Mosaic law. 



It would seem that I have a feline tenacity of life ; once more, a 

 " fatal " error. But Mr. Gladstone has forgotten an excellent rule 

 of controversy : say what is true, of course, but mind that it is 

 decently probable. Now it is not decently probable, hardly indeed 

 conceivable, that any one who has read Josephus, or any other 

 historian of the Jewish war, should be unaware that there were 

 Jews (of whom Josephus himself was one), who "Romanized" 

 and, more or less openly, opposed the war party. But, however 

 that may be, I assert that Mr. Gladstone neither has produced, 

 nor can produce, a passage of my writing which affords the slight- 

 est foundation for this particular article of his indictment. 



Prop. 5. His examination of the text of Josephus is alike one- 

 sided, inadequate, and erroneous. 



Easy to say, hard to prove. So long as the authorities whom 

 I have cited are on my side, I do not know why this singularly 

 temperate and convincing dictum should trouble me. I have yet 

 to become acquainted with Mr. Gladstone's claims to speak with 

 an authority equal to that of scholars of the rank of Schurer, 

 whose obviously just and necessary emendations he so uncere- 

 moniously pooh-poohs. 



Prop. 6. Finally, he sets aside, on grounds not critical or his- 

 torical, but purely subjective, the primary historical testimony on 

 the subject, namely, that of the three synoptic Evangelists, who write 

 as contemporaries and deal directly with the subject, neither of 

 which is done by any other authority. 



Really this is too much ! The fact is, as anybody can see who 

 will turn to my article of February, 1889 [Popular Science 

 Monthly, April, 1889], out of which all this discussion has arisen, 

 that the arguments upon which I rest the strength of my case 

 touching the swine-miracle, are exactly " historical " and " criti- 

 cal." Expressly, and in words that can not be misunderstood, I 

 refuse to rest on what Mr. Gladstone calls " subjective " evidence. 

 I abstain from denying the possibility of the Gadarene occur- 

 rence, and I even go so far as to speak of some physical analogies 

 to possession. In fact, my quondam opponent, Dr. Wace, shrewd- 

 ly, but quite fairly, made the most of these admissions, and 

 stated that I had removed the only " consideration which would 

 have been a serious obstacle " in the way of his belief in the 

 Gadarene story.* 



So far from setting aside the authority of the Synoptics on 

 " subjective " grounds, I have taken a great deal of trouble to 



* Nineteenth Century, March, 1889, p. 362 [Popular Science Monthly, May, 1889, p. 

 76]. 



