joint.

But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.

Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth
Gospel:--

'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests
principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other
Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and
also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the
appellation [Greek: ho baptistes], whilst he carefully
distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always
speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but
rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness
of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]

Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes
this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the
other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be
natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay
great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because
it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle
indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a
forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author
considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,
when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it
is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to
whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer
stating that the Fourth Evangelist

'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from
the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein
einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistes].' [19:2]

So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his
German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error
is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a
commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set
right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not
construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the
reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the
subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on