miracles and of a direct Divine Revelation.(1) It is not pretended that more than one of the synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists, or is now even conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under the circumstances could have been thought possible.
1 A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would
have confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present
necessary, and we must hasten on.
PART III. THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CHAPTER I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
"We shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already cited in connection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what evidence they furnish for the date and authenticity of the fourth Gospel
Apologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the fourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.(1)
A few critics(2) pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a type of Jesus. Tischendorf states the case as follows:—