of the
prophecy, are evidently unconscious of any discrepancy, real or
apparent, that needs explanation; which could not have been the case had
they written years after the event predicted. "It may be safely held,"
says Professor Fisher, Supernatural Origin of Christianity, p. 172,
"that had the evangelist been writing at a later time, some explanation
would have been thrown in to remove the _seeming_ discrepancy between
prophecy and fulfilment."

It should be further noticed that the evangelists Matthew and Mark, in
reference to "the abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place,
throw in the admonitory words, "Let him that readeth understand." These
are not the Saviour's words, but those of the narrators calling the
attention of believers to a most important sign requiring their
immediate flight to the mountains. Before the overthrow of the city
these words had a weighty office; after its overthrow they would have
been utterly superfluous. Their presence in such a connection is proof
that the record was written before the event to which it refers.

Admitting the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Acts, (which
will be considered hereafter,) we have a special proof of the early
composition of the gospel according to Luke. The book of Acts ends
abruptly with Paul's two years residence at Rome, which brings us down
to A.D. 65, five years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The only
natural explanation of this fact is that here the composition of the
book of Acts was brought to a close. The date of the gospel which
preceded, Acts 1:1, must therefore be placed still earlier.

If, now, we examine the gospel of John, we find its internal character
agreeing with the ancient tradition that it was written at Ephesus late
in the apostle's life. That it was composed at a distance from Judea, in
a Gentile region, is manifest from his careful explanation of Jewish
terms and usages, which among his countrymen would have needed no
explanation. No man writing in Judea, or among the Galileans who
habitually attended the national feasts at Jerusalem, would have said,
"And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh," 6:4; "Now the Jews'
feast of tabernacles was at hand," 7:2, etc. The absence of all
reference to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, civil and
ecclesiastical, may be naturally explained upon the supposition that the
apostle wrote some years after that event, when his mind had now become
familiar with the