[297]Eusebius: "Hist. Eccl.," iii. 39. "What was said ... by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say." The argument for two Johns is based upon the fact that the name is mentioned twice and that different tenses are used.
[297]Eusebius: "Hist. Eccl.," iii. 39. "What was said ... by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say." The argument for two Johns is based upon the fact that the name is mentioned twice and that different tenses are used.
[298]Rev. H. J. Bardsley: "The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to the Authorship of 'St. John,'"Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 56, July, 1913, p. 491.
[298]Rev. H. J. Bardsley: "The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to the Authorship of 'St. John,'"Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 56, July, 1913, p. 491.
[299]C. A. Bernoulli, in appendix to Overbeck's "Johannesevangelium," 1911, pp. 504, 505.
[299]C. A. Bernoulli, in appendix to Overbeck's "Johannesevangelium," 1911, pp. 504, 505.
[300]"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," 1910. From the Synoptists, he says, we do not learn of disciples of the Baptist becoming disciples of Jesus. "But if the work of the Baptist was what the Synoptists declare it to have been, namely, to prepare the way for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that this work, faithfully carried out, could have failed of this result—to supply disciples for Him" (p. 59).
[300]"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," 1910. From the Synoptists, he says, we do not learn of disciples of the Baptist becoming disciples of Jesus. "But if the work of the Baptist was what the Synoptists declare it to have been, namely, to prepare the way for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that this work, faithfully carried out, could have failed of this result—to supply disciples for Him" (p. 59).
[301]"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," in "Cambridge Biblical Essays." The best explanation of the silence of the Synoptists upon the raising of Lazarus is still that given by Holdsworth, "Gospel Origins," p. 126: "Every missionary knows that to mention the names of converts in published accounts of their work among a people hostile to Christianity is fraught with peril to those who are mentioned.... The difficult question of the appearance in the Fourth Gospel of the raising of Lazarus finds its best explanation in an application of this rule.... Although the Synoptists record the saying of Christ that the name of the woman who broke the bottle of spikenard ... should be mentioned [or rather her deed] wherever the Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never mentioned by them." Long afterwards John mentions Mary's name.
[301]"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," in "Cambridge Biblical Essays." The best explanation of the silence of the Synoptists upon the raising of Lazarus is still that given by Holdsworth, "Gospel Origins," p. 126: "Every missionary knows that to mention the names of converts in published accounts of their work among a people hostile to Christianity is fraught with peril to those who are mentioned.... The difficult question of the appearance in the Fourth Gospel of the raising of Lazarus finds its best explanation in an application of this rule.... Although the Synoptists record the saying of Christ that the name of the woman who broke the bottle of spikenard ... should be mentioned [or rather her deed] wherever the Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never mentioned by them." Long afterwards John mentions Mary's name.
Transcribers note:P 156 Home-land changed to homelandP 12 The Theistic Infer enc changed to The Theistic Inference