of this event would be crowding an already crowded period, and would be likely to produce confusion in the reader's mind. Only one supposition, namely, that the statement is erroneous, can justify the view that it was made by some unknown writer of the second century; and that supposition cannot be proved correct.

Again, the Fourth Gospel seems to place the supper in Bethany, at which Christ was anointed by Mary, six days before the passover, while the other Gospels seem to place it two days before the passover. The language is not such in either case as to make the date perfectly certain against other testimony; but if we had only the Fourth Gospel we should doubtless put the supper on Saturday, while if we had only the Synoptical Gospels, we should put it on Wednesday. In this instance, also, I believe that an apostle, writing from the springs of personal knowledge, would scarcely think of a possibility of contradiction between his record and any other; but I cannot easily imagine that a falsarius, who had learned from others all that he knew of these events, would have failed to shun such a difference as the one in question-especially as there appears to be no assignable motive for giving the feast an earlier date than it seems to have in the Synoptists.

Another difference arises from omissions. There are a few things omitted in the Fourth Gospel which are recorded in the first three, and which John would have been more likely than a falsarius to omit. One of these is the name of the Apostle John. This does not once occur in the Fourth Gospel. And it is conceivable that a truly modest man might never refer to himself by name, though he had filled an important place among the disciples. But it is impossible to discover any motive that would have led a Chistian of the second century to omit the name of John, the companion of Peter. A similar remark may be made concerning the omission of the name of his brother James, who was the third member of the inner group of three, so highly distinguished by Christ. Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, even Judas Iscariot, are frequently mentioned, but neither James nor John. And the same may be noticed in regard to Salome, who was probably the mother of James and John. Compare, on this point, John 19:25, with Matthew 27: 56, and Mark 15: 40. "It is very unlikely," says Conder ("Outlines of the Life of Christ," p. 55, Note), "that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a sister of the same name; and it quite accords with St. John's suppression of his own name that he should refer to his own mother in the same manner. This view throws a beautiful light both on the special love of the Master for this one disciple, and on John 19:26, 27," where Jesus commits to John the care of his mother.

Again, the Fourth Gospel never adds the epithet Baptist to the name of John, the harbinger of Christ. If the modest author was himself the only other John who was closely connected with Jesus, it is quite conceivable that he would speak of the forerunner as John-the John who needed no epithet to distinguish him from the writerthe only person, in fact, whom the writer, in his oral reminiscences, had any occasion to denominate John, since if he referred to himself at all it would naturally be done by means of the pronoun I. In such circumstances, I say, it is by no means improbable that the apostle would uniformly call his great namesake simply John. But this would not have been a natural thing for any one else to do, certainly not for a Christian of the second century.

The force of the argument from these omissions in favor of the view that the Fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John rather than by some unknown Christian of the second century, depends in part upon the assumption that this apostle was a truly modest If there were good evidence that he was a forward, conceited, self-asserting man,

man.

the force of this consideration would be greatly weakened. And two facts have been supposed to favor the idea that he was the reverse of modest or self-forgetful, namely: First, that he sometimes refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (viz., in 13 : 23; 19: 26; 20: 2; 21: 7, 20). But in estimating the bearing of this fact, we ought to ask ourselves: first, how this way of referring to himself was modified in his own feelings by withholding his name; secondly, how it was modified by the warmth of his nature which may have made him peculiarly grateful to Christ for tender love, and inexpressibly eager to utter in some strong, though impersonal way, his profound appreciation of that love; and, thirdly, how he bore himself, though a powerful and ardent soul, when afterwards he was associated with Peter and the other apostles in Christian service. If we answer these questions, as they ought to be answered in justice to the life and character of John as they appear in the sacred record, the argument from the omissions noted above will lose none of its force. The second fact which is alleged to be inconsistent with genuine or at least peculiar modesty on the part of John, is the request which he joined with his brother James in making, through their mother, that they two might sit, one on his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom. But in estimating the value of this fact, as an objection to the modesty of John, we may properly bear in mind, (a) that these two brothers were expecting that Jesus would establish an earthly kingdom, (b) that they were probably cousins of Jesus, and were certainly honored with his special intimacy, (c) that they presented their request through their mother, if not by her advice, and (d) that they appear to have quietly dropped the matter as soon as the Master's will was known. Beyond question they were among the ablest as well as the best beloved of the disciples, and this one request does not, in view of all the circumstances, prove that they were specially forward, or in any respect conceited men. The presentation of their request through their mother, points rather in the opposite direction.

We have now briefly considered the bearing of certain differences between the Fourth Gospel and the other three on the question as to the authorship of the former, namely: (a) a difference as to the localities in which Christ fulfilled his ministry, (b) a difference as to the duration of that ministry, (c) a difference as to the miracles ascribed to Jesus, () a difference as to parables or method of teaching, (e) a difference as to events related, (ƒ) a difference occasioned by a definite class of omissions, and have found them all to be favorable to the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

Attention may be given, secondly, to certain narratives of the Fou th Gospel which are rendered peculiarly graphic by means of unimportant circumstances-meaning by unimportant circumstances those which are not essential to the expression of religious truth. One of these is the circumstantial way in which the Evangelist describes the gathering to Jesus of his first disciples (1 : 29-42). After giving an account of an interview between John the Baptist and a deputation of Pharisees from Jerusalem, he mentions the place where this deputation was received, viz.: Bethany (or Bethabara), beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing, and then proceeds to relate how on the morrow the Baptist saw Jesus coming unto him, and said: "Behold the Lamb of God," etc.; how on the following day he was standing with two of his disciples and, looking upon Jesus as he walked, said again: "Behold the Lamb of God!" how the two disciples heard him saying this, though it may not have been addressed particularly to them, and therefore followed Jesus; how Jesus having turned and seen them following, said unto them: "What seek ye?" And when they answered, "Rabbi, where dwellest thou?" invited them to "come and see "; how they complied with this invitation; and, it being about the

tenth hour, abode the rest of the day with him, though one of them, meanwhile, whose name was Andrew, found his more distinguished brother and brought him to Jesus; and how Jesus looked upon that brother, and, perceiving what he was to become, said: "Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas" (i. e., Peter).

Does not this narrative declare itself to be the work of an eye-witness, by almost every line? For so brief a paragraph, the number of particulars mentioned is very great. And they are such particulars as a deeply interested witness might be expected to remember. If the writer was the Apostle John, the day when these events took place was a day never to be forgotten by him-a veritable turning-point in his life, to which he would look back with peculiar gratitude as the beginning of his fellowship with Christ. It is not therefore a matter of surprise that he should be able to sketch so bold and distinct and perfect a picture of it. Nor is it strange that he should have ventured to differ, as he seems to do, without a word of explanation, from the earlier Evangelists, both as to the time when the four leading disciples began to follow Jesus, and as to the time when the Lord gave to Simon his new name. I do not say or believe that there is any real contradiction between the Fourth Gospel and the first three on either of these points; but I think there is a difference of representation that cannot readily be accounted for, without supposing the Fourth Gospel to be true, and the testimony of an original witness. Everything is credible and, indeed, natural, if this Gospel be received as the work of the Apostle John; but much is surprising, if it be ascribed to some unknown Christian of the second century. The picture before us is too simple and vivid, too minute in detail, and independent in character, to be the work of a falsarius.

Equally graphic is the next paragraph, which relates what was done on the following day, viz.: how Philip was found by the Lord as the latter was about to go forth into Galilee, and then how Nathanael was found by Philip. Especially fresh and spicy is the conversation between Philip and Nathanael, while that between Nathanael and Christ is more striking and original still. It will also be observed that the native place of Philip is mentioned, with an added notice that it was the native place of Andrew and Peter as well. With no less particularity does the Evangelist describe the events of the next day-the marriage and miracle in Cana of Galilee. All these paragraphs appear to be the story of an eye-witness, of one who was present when the deputation questioned John the Baptist on the first day, when the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the Messiah on the second day, when he pointed him out again, on the third day, and two of his own disciples followed Christ to his abode, when Jesus went to Galilee on the fourth day, and when he turned the water into wine on the fifth day.

Another portion of the Fourth Gospel may be studied from the same point of viewnamely, the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well (4: 5-45). But our study of it must be brief. Reference may, however, be made in a single paragraph to several particulars. Here are allusions to scenery-e. g., to the deep well, the adjacent mountain, the neighboring city, the fertile plain; to historic facts—as the connection of Jacob with the well, the non-intercourse of Jews and Samaritans, the worship of the former in Jerusalem and of the latter in Gerizim; to social customs-for the disciples, it is said, "marvelled that he was speaking with (a) woman," and, notwithstanding their non-intercourse with Samaritans, went into the city and mingled with the people enough to buy food of them; and, perhaps, to the season of the year—“Say ye not, there are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? In all these respects the narrative appears to be remarkably true to place, age, and circumstances.

But the question of the woman, addressed to the men in the city, seems to bear the stamp of originality in a peculiar degree. According to the narrative the woman evidently believed that Jesus was the Christ; would not a writer of fiction have made her intimate this belief in her question?-even as the Common English Version: "Is not this the Christ?" intimates it? But according to the Greek narrative she did not. For some reason she saw fit to speak as if she were herself in doubt, and even a little inclined to think that he was not the Christ,-(I oůtos éσtiv ó Xpiσtós),—though she was nevertheless anxious to have the judgment of her neighbors on the point. Says Godet: "She believes more than she says; but she does not venture to assume even as probable so great news. Nothing could be more natural than this little trait." Possibly it would be right to say that because she was a woman, and because she was such a woman, she felt that the people to whom she spoke would be more influenced by the facts she reported if she did not seem to draw, with too great confidence, the highest possible inference from them.

Men are sometimes too proud to be guided in their judgment, especially by women, and women are sometimes keen-sighted enough to perceive this. If this woman had known human nature perfectly, I question whether she could have made a report of Christ's words better calculated to lead the men of Sychar to consider fairly the claims of Jesus. But it seems to me that a writer of fiction in the second century would scarcely have had so subtle a perception of the workings of a woman's mind as to put into her mouth this form of question.

But how, it may perhaps be asked, could the Apostle John have learned the precise form or purport of this woman's question to the men of the city? We answer, from the men themselves, as he met and conversed with them during the two days spent by Jesus and his disciples in Sychar or Shechem. Or how, it may again be asked, could John have learned the substance of the remarkable conversation of Christ with the woman at the well? We answer, by hearing it, as he remained at the well with Jesus; for it is unnecessary to suppose that all the disciples went into the city to buy food. At the same time we must likewise admit that Jesus himself may have given an account of the conversation to the disciple whom he loved, or that this disciple may have learned it from the woman. The first supposition, however, seems to be more probable than either of the others.

As another instance of graphic narrative we may refer to the ninth chapter, which contains the story of the Lord's giving sight to a man who had been blind from his birth, together with a sketch of the transactions springing out of that miracle. Perhaps no person ever read the chapter without a feeling of admiration at the firmness, the honesty, the good sense, and the quickness of retort displayed by the man whose congenital blindness had been removed, or without a feeling of regret, if not of shame, at the timid and evasive answer of his parents, when they were questioned by the Pharisees, or without a feeling of deep indignation at the malicious and unscrupulous enmity of the Jewish leaders to Jesus. The whole narrative is powerful-instinct with reality and life. Especially do we admire the man who washed in the pool of Siloam and returned seeing, when he was brought before the rulers. As he stands there and answers, at once for himself and for his Benefactor, he is in our judgment a model witness. He clings to the simple truth with a lion's grip. His insight is as clear as his new-found sight. With only a beggar's education, his logic is sharp and strong as reason itself, and his attack on the position of his judges terrible as the stroke of a catapult. While his heart is singing: "Hail, holy light, offspring of heaven, first

born," his intellect and conscience and purpose are unshaken by the deadly scowl of fanaticism armed with power. But there is one touch of nature in this narrative, which has long seemed to me inexplicable if the Fourth Gospel was written by a falsarius of the second century. For such a writer must be presumed to have filled in the details of the narrative by his own imagination, since it is scarcely possible that they could have reached him in this form by means of oral tradition. The touch of nature to which I allude is the way in which his neighbors describe the man whose eyes had now, for the first time, been opened to see the sun. For they ask, not as the thought of his blindness and its miraculous removal would naturally shape their question : Is not this he that was born blind? but rather: "Is not this he that sat and begged? (ó kadýμevos kai пpoσaiтv). And I do not think it uncharitable to suspect that these "neighbors and they who saw him aforetime that he was a beggar" (Rev. Ver.), had been more troubled by the man's begging than by his blindness; and therefore the fact that he was wont to ask an alms was more deeply impressed on their minds than the fact that he could not see. Hence, it was perfectly natural for them to employ the designation here reported. But I doubt whether any writer of the second century would have put these words into the lips of "the neighbors," any sooner than he would have put them into the lips of Jesus, or of the Jewish rulers. In describing this great miracle, the giving of sight by Jesus to one born blind would have been the absorbing idea; and a perfect side-stroke in his picture, like the one here introduced, would have been beyond the skill of any writer of that age. If not, this writer must have been, as I have intimated, more than once, a great unknown, a prodigy in his generation.

Another portion of the Fourth Gospel which is rendered peculiarly graphic and lifelike by the insertion of circumstances non-essential in a doctrinal respect, is the narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus, in the eleventh chapter. Meyer remarks that "the narrative is distinguished for its thoughtful tenderness, certainty, and truthfulness." Let us notice a few particulars which are best accounted for by supposing that this chapter was written by an apostolic witness, and therefore by John, the brother of James. 1. It is difficult to believe that a writer of the second century would have dared to ascribe this miracle to Christ without having any evidence that he wrought such a miracle, near the close of his ministry, in Bethany; and it is equally difficult to believe that he could have had satisfactory knowledge of the miracle in question. But if Lazarus was raised from the dead, and if John was present when this occurred, it is perfectly credible that the aged apostle may have been led by the Spirit and providence of God to insert an account of it in his Gospel. 2. It is difficult to believe that a writer of the second century either knew through oral tradition, or invented without the help of tradition, the striking particulars of this narrative. These particulars are too numerous for separate examination, but upon close scrutiny they will be found entirely self-consistent and wonderfully interesting. And they are withal such particulars as a loving disciple might be expected to remember with satisfaction and to put on record with his account of the miracle itself. 3. The impression which this narrative gives of the distinctive traits of Martha and Mary exactly accords with the impression which Luke's account of another scene gives (10: 38 sq). For Luke says that a certain woman, named Martha, received him [i. e., Jesus] into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord's feet, and heard his word. But Martha was distracted about much serving; and she came up to him, and said: Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone?" etc. (Rev. Ver.). To judge the sisters by this account, Martha was probably older than Mary, and likewise more