Perfectly true; there doubtless is the possibility that ‘an unexampled, unknown, and unmeasured literary genius’ could have done what we find. But as a rule, where facts can be explained easily and naturally without having recourse to any such extraordinary assumption, the world is content so to explain them. The practical question is a balance of probabilities. And even now, as in the days of Bishop Butler, probability is the very guide of life. Footnote 41: Wrede, _Charakter und Tendenz d. Johannesevangeliums_ (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1903), p. 25. Footnote 42: An excellent example is the treatment of the Acts of Paul and Thecla by Professor W. M. Ramsay in _The Church in the Roman Empire_, pp. 375-428. Footnote 43: ‘Das Geographische im Evangelium nach Johannes,’ in the _Zeitschr. f. neuttest. Wiss._, 1902, pp. 257-265. Footnote 44: Cf. Drummond, p. 366 f.; and the writer’s _Sacred Sites of the Gospels_, p. 95. Footnote 45: H. J. Holtzmann, ad loc., and _Einleitung_, ed. 2, p. 469: cf. Drummond, p. 437 f. Footnote 46: Pp. 42-6. Footnote 47: It is denied by Holtzmann, but approved by Westcott. Footnote 48: For a discussion of the nature of this defilement see Chwolson, _Das letzte Passamahl Christi_, p. 56 ff. Footnote 49: Op. cit. p. 49. Footnote 50: It is very surprising that Freiherr Hermann von Soden, in a pamphlet published at the end of the year, _Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu_ (Berlin, 1904), p. 9, should deny the existence of local colour in the Fourth Gospel. In proof he mentions some half-dozen points that occur in the Synoptics but not in this Gospel; which only means that it is of a different type from the other three, and does not repeat what was already found in them. And yet, even of these points, several come back in another form. It is true that the Gospel does not describe the healing of a demoniac, but it has many marked allusions to demoniacal possession (see below, p. 134). It is true that it has not the name ‘Sadducees’; it speaks of them rather as ‘chief priests’; but it is well acquainted with their character and policy (see above, p. 126 ff.). The Gospel has no ‘elders,’ but it has ‘rulers’ or members of the Sanhedrin, whose position it perfectly understands. In like manner it has no νομικοί or νομοδιδάσκαλοι, but it is fond of the title ‘Rabbi,’ and it makes pointed reference to Rabbinical training (see below, p. 132). The whole page of criticism, coming from a writer of such eminence, is most disappointing. Either the statements are very questionable as fact or they have not the slightest bearing on the authorship of the Gospel. Why should not an Apostle break off somewhat abruptly in his report of a discourse, or glide imperceptibly from narrative into comment? That is just what St. Paul does, as we shall see (p. 168, below).