which it only differs in a
couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
the substitution of [Greek: trupematos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
[134:1]

Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it
must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels
existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from
circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the
laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to
others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived
from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is
not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,
but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring
evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.

Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"
it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the
account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the
more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a
note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative
are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like
Keim, Schuerer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need
to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.
Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the
life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and
it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have