ld certainly not have
regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it
is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.

Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it
with the expression ([Greek: to eiremenon]), which is used in the New
Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40,
Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be
'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'
that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused
perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously
'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the
Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its
most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian
are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying
of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand,
the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this
coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back
on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and
other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not
touch the point of the resemblance.

On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth
Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but
then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo]
for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author
also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any
language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like
the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the
coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are
extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation
which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.

So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere
does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative
evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability
that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances
as in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain.

It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the
Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may