INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

The claim of authorship which a book sets forth on its own pages has a presumption in its favor. It is the same presumption which attaches in law to a will or a deed when written and signed in due form. It is not proof, but in the absence of proof to the contrary it stands good. The evidence necessary to set it aside or to confirm it, may be external, or internal, or both. External evidence is that derived from other sources than the book itself. It is that with respect to the New Testament, which we have already considered. Internal evidence is that found in the contents of the book. If events are mentioned in it, or alluded to as having transpired, which really took place; after the supposed author's death, or which, for any other cause, could not have been known to him; or it words are employed which did not come into use until after his death, the claim is disproved. If no such evidence is found, and if, on the contrary, evidence in support of the claim is found, the presumption is turned into proof. From the nature of the case, however, internal evidence is much more effective, and much more commonly employed in disproving the claims of spurious books, than in establishing those of the genuine: for it is extremely difficult for one writer to personate another, and especially another belonging to a different country and a different age, without betraying himself in unguarded moments, and even failing in the prominent features of the imitation.

The proper method of procedure in this inquiry is to first presume that the book is genuine, and then search its pages for evidence pro and con., allowing the preponderance of evidence to decide the question. But the decision thus reached is not final until the internal evidence is considered in connection with the external. A slight preponderance of evidence from cither source may be overbalanced by weightier evidence from the other; or both sources may unite in support of one conclusion.

We now proceed to collect out of the several books of the New Testament the internal evidence of their genuineness, and we shall see whether or not this supports the external evidence which we have already considered. In doing so we shall not attempt to be exhaustive, but, as in the former case, we shall present only those prominent evidences on which the decision chiefly depends.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. This book contains no express statement of its date or its authorship; and the same is true of all the historical books of the New Testament. It is true likewise of the same class of books in the Old Testament, and of ancient historical works in general. As regards its date, however, the book of Matthew confines itself within very narrow limits and it contains some confirmation of the external evidences as to its authorship. It incidentally claims to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred A. D. 70, by giving as unfulfilled prophecy the prediction of Jesus concerning that event, (xxiv 1-28.) Had this prophecy been fulfilled when the book was written, the author could not have failed to mention the fact, because it would have been a strong confirmation of his own testimony in favor of Jesus. Moreover, he included in the prophecy, and most probably he himself inserted it, a parenthetical note of warning, by which the Jewish disciples of Jesus might be prepared to escape from the city on the eve of its destruction. It is quite certain from these considerations that, unless the author was guilty of a fraudulent pretense, the book was written before the year 70. On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that it was written a number of years after the death of Jesus. The author says concerning the spot where Judas hung himself, "That field was called the field of blood, unto this day;" and concerning the assertion of the guards at the sepulchre, that the disciples of Jesus came by night and stole his body away, he says, "This saying was spread abroad among the Jews until this day." These passages show that the book was written a sufficient length of time after its closing events to make it worthy of remark that the story of the guards was still in circulation, and that the name "field of blood" was still in use. This implies the expiration of a large portion of the thirty-four years that intervened between the death of Jesus and the final siege of Jerusalem, and it throws the date of Matthew's Gospel into the latter half of this period. We know nothing more definite as to the date.

In confirmation of the reputed authorship, we find in the book a few peculiarities which can scarcely be accounted for on any other hypothesis. For example, while the other writers, in their lists of the Apostles, give Matthew's name without the opprobrious epithet, "the publican," an omission quite proper under the circumstances, this writer, with a humility equally proper, if Matthew is he, gives it, "Matthew the publican."1 Again, in speaking of the feast which Matthew gave after his call to follow Jesus, Mark and Luke both speak of it as "in his house," while this writer, as is natural with the owner of the house, says, "in the house." 2 These circumstances, from their very minuteness, tend strongly to confirm the preceding evidence that Matthew was the author.

THE GOSPEL OF MARK. This Gospel treats the Saviour's predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in the same way as does Matthew's, and by the same process of reasoning it is proved to hive been written before that event. It was also written after the general dispersion abroad of the Apostles in the execution of their commission; for it closes with the statement that "They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that followed." Its date therefore was early enough for its reputed authorship, and it was not far from that of Matthew's Gospel.

The external evidence that it was written by Mark for the purpose of presenting the story of Jesus as it was habitually preached by Peter, is confirmed by the fact that in it Peter is made much less conspicuous than in the other Gospels. While it docs not fail to relate those incidents which are discreditable to Peter, even the denial of his Lord, it omits nearly all of those that are creditable to him, such as the high commendation of him by Jesus after his celebrated confession, the promise to him of the keys of the kingdom, the catching of the fish with money in its mouth, and the fact that Peter was the first Apostle to see the risen Lord. It also omits his name in describing his courageous attack upon the band who came to arrest Jesus in the garden, saving only that "a certain one of them" did this.3

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. The evidence that this Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is the same us in the case of Matthew and Mark, except that in the report of the prediction of that event, he omits the warning, "Let him that readeth understand."4 It was written before the book of Acts by the same author, and there is internal evidence that the latter was written in the year 63.5 It was written early enough for the author to have consulted the original witnesses of the events which it records; for he claims these witnesses as his sources of information.6 It was written, then, early enough for Luke, the companion of Paul, to have been its author, as the external evidence declares.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. This Gospel claims to have been written by one of the twelve Apostles, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Near the close its says: "This is the disciple who bears witness of these things and wrote these things;" and the reference is to the disciple just before mentioned as the one whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on his breast at the last supper.7 Now there are only three of the twelve whom Jesus received into such intimacy that one of them could be known as the disciple whom he loved. These were Peter, James and John, the three who alone were permitted to witness the transfiguration, whom alone he took with him into the garden of Gethsemane, and whom he especially honored on other occasions.8 But the one whom he loved can not have been Peter, seeing that he is especially distinguished from Peter in the statement that "Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following," etc.9 Neither can James have been the one thus designated, for he was beheaded by Herod long previous to the earliest date that can be assigned to this Gospel.10 Furthermore, while all the other writers in speaking of John the Baptist, give him his title to distinguish him from John the Apostle, the writer of this Gospel alone refers to him simply as John, a circumstance to be accounted for only by the fact that this writer was the other John.

This method of designating himself contains very strong evidence of the author's sincerity: for a spurious writer of a later period could scarcely conceive of such a method, but, lest the reader should fail to recognize him as the Apostle John, he would have written openly under that name, after the manner of the spurious Gospels of the second century.11

The principal internal evidence as to the date of this Gospel is found in the fact that it differs so widely in its subject matter from the other three, thus indicating that its author knew the contents of the others, and that it was written after these had became so widely circulated as to make it superfluous to reiterate what they had made known. This wide divergence from the other three Gospels is proof not only of a later date than theirs, but also of a date too early and of an authorship too authoritative for a spurious document: for if the three previous Gospels had alone gone down to a late period as the accepted record of the career of Jesus, no man in attempting to write a Gospel in the name of John would have ventured to depart so widely from them, or if he had, his book would have been rejected at once as a forgery. Its very divergence from the other Gospels is no mean proof, under the circumstances, of its apostolic authorship.12

ACTS OF APOSTLES. This book claims to have been written by the same author as the third Gospel, and it incidentally, by the use of the pronouns "we" and "us," represents its author as being an actor in many of the scenes which it describes.13 The external evidence that its author was Luke is confirmed by the fact obtained from two of Paul's epistles, that he was a companion of Paul as the narrative represents, during its closing scenes.14 The date of composition could not have been earlier than the last event mentioned in the book, Paul's two years imprisonment, which terminated A. D. 63. Neither could it well have been later than this: for the last four chapters of it are occupied with a very interesting account of proceedings and journeys consequent upon Paul's appeal to Caesar from the rulings of Festus; and after dwelling so long upon this subject it would have been a most unnatural termination of the narrative to have omitted the final decision, had it been rendered when the book left the author's hands. It would have been like the sudden close of a drama or of a novel just previous to the winding up of the plot; or the close of the history of some celebrated jury trial without giving the verdict of the jury. The internal evidence therefore fixes the date at the end of the second year of Paul's Roman imprisonment, which was the spring of the year 63.15

Another internal evidence of the early date of Acts, is the manner in which the author speaks of members of the Herod family. Nothing is more puzzling to the modern reader who is not familiar with the secular history of that period, than the way in which these men are spoken of in the Gospels and Acts. For example, the author of Acts and of the third Gospel has "Herod the King" reigning before the birth of John the Baptist; then he has "Herod the tetrarch" imprisoning and killing John; then Jesus is sent by Pilate to "Herod;" then the Apostle James is slain by "Herod the King;" and finally Paul is brought before "King Agrippa;" yet there is not a line of description to distinguish these Herods from one another, or to show their relationship. A writer of his carefulness in other matters could not have written thus unless he was writing when these princes were still well known, and therefore in the very generation to which the majority of them belonged.

Paul's Thirteen Epistles. All of the epistles usually ascribed to Paul, with the exception of that to the Hebrews, contain the name of Paul as the; writer, not subscribed at the close, after the modern custom, but according to the ancient custom embodied in the opening salutation. They contain also many allusions to the author's personal experience-, agreeing with what is known of Paul through other sources, and thus they bear all the internal marks by which the genuineness of epistolary documents of a past age is tested.16 Their several dates are fixed with a good degree of accuracy between the years 52 and 68.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Unlike all the other epistles ascribed to Paul, this one is anonymous. It is not addressed formally to any individual or community, and it is known to have been intended for Hebrew readers only by its arguments. Notwithstanding these peculiarities, it has enough of the characteristics of an epistle to be properly so called. It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as appears from its frequent references to the temple service as being still in existence;17 and from the consideration, that had the city been destroyed and the temple worship thus abolished, the author could not have failed, in his elaborate argument on the temporary nature of that service and of the Jewish priesthood (chapters vii.--x.) to make use of the fact.  

As to its author, the external evidence, as we have seen in Chapter Third, is divided, but the preponderance is in favor of Paul,18 and the internal evidence points in the same direction. It was written by one who sustained very intimate relations with Timothy, as appears from the statement (xiii. 23.). "Know ye that our brother Timothy bath been set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you;" and the writer himself had been in some trouble from which he was not yet entirely freed, as appears from his request, "Pray for us . . . . that I may be restored to you the sooner" (xiii. 18, 19.) These allusions point to Paul as the author, and they show that the Epistle was written before the death of Timothy. On the other hand, it contains some allusions which point to a date as late as the preceding facts can well allow. First, the writer rebukes his readers because they needed to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God, though "by reason of time" they ought to be teachers (v. 12.) Second, he asks them to remember the former days in which, after they were enlightened, they endured a great conflict of sufferings (x. 32-34.) Third, he exhorts them to remember their deceased spiritual rulers, and to imitate their faith (xiii. 7.) All of these allusions agree very well with the supposition that Paul was the writer, and they suggest no other person. They also indicate the close of his two years imprisonment in Rome, A. D. 63, as the probable date of the composition.

The Epistle of James. This document claims to have been written by "James a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are of the Dispersion" (i. 1.) The high authority with which he speaks throughout the Epistle, identifies him either with James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus (Luke vi. 15),or with the James who so long presided over the Church in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17; xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 12) and was called by Paul "the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9.) It is still an unsettled question whether these two are the same or different persons;19 but it is generally agreed that if they are different the latter is the author of the Epistle. He suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem A. D. 63,20 and consequently the Epistle must have been written previous to this date. That it was written in Palestine, where James resided, is evident from its local allusions. For instance, in his comparison of a rich man to a flower of the field, he says: "The sun ariseth with the scorching wind and withereth the grass; and the flower thereof filleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth" (i. 11.) This is an allusion to the green grass and the profusion of wild flowers that cover the surface of Palestine in the early spring, but wither and perish as the hot sun and desert winds come upon them soon after the close of the rainy season. Again, when he demands, "Can a fig tree yield olives, or a vine figs" (iii. 12), he derives his figures from the three most abundant fruits of Palestine; and when he speaks of the husbandman being patient until he receives "the early and the latter rain" (iv. 7), he alludes to the early rain of autumn which in Palestine is necessary to early sowing, and the latter rain of spring without which the dry season sets in too soon for the grain to mature.

THE TWO EPISTLES OF PETER. The first of these two Epistles is written in the name of "Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ" (i. 1); and in it the author speaks of himself as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (v. 1 ). Its date is indicated proximately by three considerations: First, it was addressed to the disciples in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (i. 1 ), regions which were evangelized by Paul and his associates; and consequently it must have been written after those churches had been established, and after their condition had become known to Peter. Paul closed his labors there on leaving Ephesus in the spring of A. D. 57. Second, it was written after Peter had read Paul's Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians; for the author adopts many of the peculiar expressions of Paul from these two Epistles.21 Third, as Ephesians was written A. D. 62, and Peter's death occurred in 68, the Epistle must have been written between these dates. It was written from Babylon (v. 13); but whether from the real Babylon, or from Rome figuratively called Babylon, is a question of long-continued controversy and still unsettled.

The Second Epistle is also written in the name of Peter, the author styling himself "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ"; and besides the formal salutation in Peter's name, the author alludes to the Saviour's prediction concerning the manner of his death (i. 14, comp. John xxi. 18); to his presence at the transfiguration of Jesus (i. 18); and to his having written the previous epistle to the same disciples (iii. 1). Confirmation of these formal indications of authorship is found in the fact that the Second Epistle contains many of the characteristic expressions of the First, and of Peter's speeches recorded in Acts of Apostles.22

As the First was written in the year 62 and Peter died in 68, the date of the Second can not be much later than that of the First: but there is nothing to indicate the exact year.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. This brief document claims as its author "Judas the brother of James." There is some doubt as to whether he was Judas the Apostle (Luke vi. 16; John xiv. 22) or the Judas who was one of the Lord's brothers (Mark vi. 3). If the correct rendering of Luke vi. 16 were "Judas brother of James," this would identify him as the Apostle; for here he gives himself this title. But the general usage of the Greek language is against that rendering (the Greek words are Ίούδαν Ίαχώβου) and in favor of the rendering "Judas .son of James." Again, it has been held by some that the James whose brother he was, is James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus; but this is highly improbable. The preponderance of opinion is that he was brother of the James called the Lord's brother, and consequently himself a brother of the Lord, and that he designates himself by the former title rather than by the latter, because it was more modest in view of the fact that the Lord had long ago ascended to heaven.23 It is confirmatory of this view, that he omits to style himself an Apostle, and that he rather distinguishes himself from the Apostles by speaking of the latter in the third person, saying, "Remember the words which have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ."

This Epistle bears no internal evidence of date except that it was written after the church had become infested by a large number of desperately wicked men (4-12). Its striking similarity to the second chapter of II. Peter shows that one of the two writers had seen the other's Epistle and made much use of its material. If it could be determined with certainty which is the older of the two, this would help to fix the date of Jude; but the question, though long debated, is still unsettled.24

THE THREE EPISTLES OF JOHN. These three Epistles, like the Gospel ascribed to the same author, are written without a name, but the first paragraph of the First Epistle clearly implies that it was written by an Apostle, while identity of style and diction indicates that all three came from the same writer, and from the writer of the Gospel.25 They were all three written late in the life of their author, and at a period in the history of the church which implies a long life on his part. See I. John ii. 6-18; iv. 1; II. John 1, 5, 6; III. John 1, 4.

REVELATION. This book claims John as its author (i. 1. 4.9; xxii. 8); and claims to have been written in the Island of Patmos, whither John had been sent on account of his testimony for Jesus (i. 9, 11, 19; x. 4; xiv. 13; xix. 9; xxi. 5). It is addressed to "the seven churches of Asia" (i. 4-11),and as he styles himself "a partaker with them in the tribulation, and kingdom, and patience in Jesus" (i. 9), he must already have lived among them before the book was written. These churches had been established by Paul, and though several of his epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, I. Timothy and II. Timothy) had been sent into their midst, the last just previous to his death, in all these there is no allusion to John, from which it is inferred that his residence there did not begin until after or about the time of Paul's death. As Paul was beheaded in the year 68, this is about the earliest date which can be assigned to John's residence in Asia, and to the composition of this book. This is the date actually assigned to the book by recent skeptical writers in general, and also by many others.26 Their opinion is supported by many ingenious arguments, of which the following are the most forcible: First, that the continued existence of the city and temple are implied in what is said of them in xi. 1, 2. Second, that there is such a difference in style between the Apocalypse and the other writings of John, as can be accounted for only on the supposition that he wrote the former when he was but little acquainted with the Greek language, having just removed from Judea, and the latter after a long residence among the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Ephesus and its vicinity. Third, the interpretation of the book adopted by these writers, which makes the Emperor Nero its Anti-christ, requires this date.27 All who contend for this date, set aside the positive statement of Irenaeus, which we cited in a former chapter (page 89), as a mistake based on misinformation. On the other hand, the great mass of the older critics, and some of the most recent, contend for the correctness of the statement of Irenaeus, that the book was written near the close of the reign of Domitian, who died in 96. They interpret the words in xi. 1, 2 concerning Jerusalem and the temple in a symbolical sense; they contend that the differences in style between the two books are less than is asserted, and that they can be accounted for by the difference in subject matter; and they give to the book a totally different interpretation.28 Strong internal evidence of the latter opinion is found in the condition of some of the churches addressed. The church at Ephesus had endured "toil and patience" worthy of praise, and had encountered and exposed some who falsely claimed to be Apostles; but she had left her first love and was exhorted to repent and do her first works (ii. 2-5). The church at Pergamos had passed through a severe persecution in which at least one martyr had been slain (ii. 13), while in at least three of these churches corrupt parties called Nicolaitans, followers of Balaam, and imitators of Jezebel, had become common pests (ii. G, 14, 15,20). In none of Paul's Epistles sent to these communities are any of these parties or incidents alluded to, although his last (II. Tim.) was written the year of his death, and there is every reason to believe that he would have rebuked them had they existed. So great changes could not well have taken place until quite a number of years after his death, and if they did not the earlier date must be rejected. But the genuineness of the book is not affected by the decision of this question; for this is conceded by both parties to the controversy.

We have now considered the internal evidence of the genuineness of all the New Testament books, and we find that it unites with the external evidence in supporting the claim that they were written by Apostles and "apostolic men." Objections to this line of evidence will be stated and discussed in the following Chapter.

1 Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13, comp. Matt. x. 2.

2 Mark ii. 15, 16; Luke v. 29, comp. Matt. ix. 9, 10.

3 Matt. xvi. l6-19; xvii. 24-27; Luke xxiv. 12, 34; Mark xiv. 47.

4 Luke xxi. 20, comp. Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14.

5 Acts of Apostles i. 1; and see our remarks on the date of this book, page 117.

6 Luke i. 1-4.

7 John xxi. 24; comp. 20-23; xiii. 23-25; xx. 2-9; xix. 26.

8 Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 30, 37; Mark v. 37.

9 John xxi. 20.

10 Acts xii. 1. This event, soon followed by the death of Herod, is known by the statements of Josephus to have occurred in the year 44, only ten years after the death of Jesus. Antiquities, XIX., viii. 2.

11 This line of evidence is presented clearly and strongly by Prof. Geo. P. Fisher. Supernatural Origin of Christianity, 84-86.

12 For a full and forcible statement of this evidence, see the work last cited, 97, 98.

13 Acts i. 1, 2; xvi. 10, 17; xx. 5, 6,13; xxi. 1, 7,15; xxvii. 1; xxviii. 1, 11, 16.

14 Col. iv. 15; Philemon 24. These epistles were both written while Paul was a prisoner (Col. iv. 3, 10; Philemon 23), and the evidence is conclusive that it was during the imprisonment spoken of in the closing sentences of Acts.

15 The accession of Festus occurred in the year 60. In the autumn of the same year Paul was sent to Rome (Acts xxvii. 9); he passed the winter of 60-61 in Melita, reaching Rome in the spring of 61 (xxviii. 11-14); and he remained there in prison two whole years (xxviii. 150) which extended to the spring of 63.

16 There is evidence furnished by some of the epistles, that Paul usually dictated to an amanuensis, but that, in order to certify the genuineness of his epistles by his handwriting, he wrote with his own hand the closing salutations. In the Epistle to the Romans the name of the amanuensis is given (xvi. 22), and that he employed one habitually, yet always wrote with his own hand the salutation appears from II. Thess. iii. 17: "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write" In Galatians he makes the remark, "See with how large letters I have written to you with mine own hand," which probably refers to the whole epistle, making this an exception to his rule. This evidence is lost to us in the loss of the autographs.

17 See Heb. viii. 4; ix. 6-9; x. 11, 12; xiii. 10, 11.

18 The sum of the external evidence on this point already given in Chapter Third is as follows: The Council of Carthage ascribes it to Paul (j). 60); Eusebius does the same, but says that the church at Rome did not (p. 64, and n. Origen ascribes the matter to Paul, but the composition to some other person, and says that it had been credited by some to Clement of Rome, and by others to Luke (p. 67); Clement of Alexandria says that it was written by Paul but translated into Creek by Luke. Paul's name being suppressed to make it more acceptable to Jewish readers (p. 70); Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas (p. 72); and Irenaeus is represented on doubtful authority as denying that it was written by Paul. Page 87. n. 2.

19 For the arguments on the affirmative of this question, see the article on James in Smith's Bible Dictionary; and for those on the negative, see an essay appended to Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians.

20 Josephus, Ant., XX., ix. 1; Farrar, Early Days, 302.

21 The reader can see the full force of this evidence by comparing the following passages in I. Peter with those set opposite to them in Romans and Ephesians:

1. Pet. i. 1, comp. Eph. i. 4-7.

1. Pet. i. 3, comp. Eph. i. 3.

1. Pet. i. 14, comp. Eph. ii. 8, Rom. xii. 2.

1. Pet. ii. 6-10, comp. Rom. ix. 25-32.

1. Pet. ii. 1, comp. Rom. vii. 23.

1. Pet. ii. 13,comp. Rom. xiii. 1-4.

1. Pet. ii. 18, comp. Eph. vi. 5.

1. Pet. iii. 1, comp. Eph. v. 22.

1. Pet. iii. 9, comp. Rom. xvi. 17.

1. Pet. iii. 22,comp. Eph. i. 20,Rom. viii. 34.

1. Pet. iv. 1, Rom. vi. 6.

1. Pet. iv. 10, Rom. xii. 6.

1. Pet. v. 1, comp. Rom. viii. 18.

1. Pet. v. 5, comp. Eph. v. 21.

22 The list of references is too long for insertion here. It may be found complete in the Introduction to II. Peter by Prof. Lumby, in the Bible Commentary.

23 The arguments on this question are more fully stated by Farrar in the chapter on this epistle in his Early Days of Christianity; and by Prof. Lumby, Intro, to Jude, Bible Com. The whole subject of The Brothers of the Lord is discussed with great ability and clearness by Lightfoot in an essay appended to his Commentary on Galatians.

24 Canon Farrar (Early Days of Christianity), presents the full force of the evidences for the priority of Jude, while Prof. Lumby in the Introductions to II. Peter and Jude in the Bible Commentary, does the same in favor of the priority of II. Peter.

25 For the specification necessary to the proof of the statement made on this point we refer the reader to the Introduction to I. John in the Bible Commentary, and to the many works on this epistle. To set them forth fully would require more space than we can here appropriate.

26 "We might fix the date of the Vision in the summer or autumn of A. D. (is.. This is, indeed, the all but certain date of the book." Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, 413."The Apocalypse is after the close of St. Paul's work. . . . On the other hand, it is before the destruction of Jerusalem." Westcott, Introduction to Gospel of John, p. lxxxvi. The Apocalypse was written shortly after the death of Nero, and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem." Fisher, Sup. Origin of Christianity, 125. Nero died in June, 68, and Jerusalem fell in August, 70.

27 These reasons are set forth elaborately in Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, c. xxv.

28 A very able and elaborate presentation of this side of the question is furnished by Archdeacon Lee, in his Introduction to Revelation in the Bible Commentary.