as Divine oracles, but only that they shall be
treated as intelligent and trustworthy witnesses
are treated in our courts of justice. Three of
them agree in giving a clear and explicit account
of certain facts; while the fourth uses language
which appears to some to conflict with that of the
others. The first question, therefore, would be
whether either the competence or the truthfulness
of any of them is open to suspicion. And to this
the answer is an emphatic negative. The cir-
cumstances, moreover, veto the suggestion of a
mistake; for the events of those dreadful days
must have been burned into the memories of all
who took part in them. This being so, the point
upon which any tribunal would fix attention
would be whether the evidence of the witness
that seems to differ from the rest may not have
been misconstrued.

I seize upon that point. And my contention
is not that, by straining words or having recourse
to far-fetched explanations, the last Gospel can
be twisted into agreement with the others; but
that the exegesis which makes it differ from
them is in every part of it a tangle of blunders.
For as Lange says, "If the expressions of John
be pondered in their full significance, he will be
found to have declared more accurately than the

-234-