dee is confirmed by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Although the boo

bly be supposed that an unknown author had desired to gain a hearing for his work by putting it falsely under the name of a great apostle. As it is, the inference that the author claims to be John

Gospel to its author

Christ's power which is possessed by every Christian. On the contrary, the glory of Christ, as it is intended by the evangelist, is fully explained by such passages as ch. 2:11. The miracles of Jesus-palpable, visible events in the external world-are clearly included in what is meant.

speaks of "that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life," evidently these words have signific

h a particular one among the eyewitnesses. In John 1:35-42, an unnamed disciple of Jesus is mentioned. "One of the two," it is said in v. 40, "that heard John speak, and followed him,

Gospel, who, through a feeling common in the literature of antiquity, as well as of our own time, did not like to mention his own name in the course of his narrative. We have already observed that the author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Christ. John 1:14. When, therefore, near the beginning of the narrati

o far as this first passage is concerned, is nothing more than a

resent at the Supper which is described in chs. 13 to 17. The disciple "whom Jesus loved," however, was not only among the Twelve; he was evidently among the innermost circle of the Twelve. Such an innermost circle appears

ot, Thomas, Philip, Judas not Iscariot-yet the disciple who is introduced with especial emphasis, whose very position at table is described with a wealth of detail far greater than is displayed in the case of any of the others, is designated merely

important indication in ch. 19:35. "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." "He that hath seen" can scarcely refer to anyone other than the beloved disciple who was me

esus loved" is of course the same as the on

associated with the author in commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This phenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as a sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of friends. It will

ntioned in the Gospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the very innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less prominent than they are named frequently on the pages of the Gospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least of these men is, as a ma

ospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names, but in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father. Possibly this sl

nt there cannot be the slightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44. Acts 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not written so early

he profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the importance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I John 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he had simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as an eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it possible to accept such a view; but the simple re