concoction of a later time; “hence the origin of the Gospel of _Matthew_ is to be put down not before the time of _Hadrian_; in the fourth century rather than in the third.” _A. Harnack_ fixes the date of the Gospel at shortly after 70, because “_Matthew_, as well as _Luke_, are presupposing the destruction of Jerusalem. This follows with the greatest probability from Matt. xxii. 7 (the parable of the marriage feast).” This is to be held also of _Luke’s_ Gospel. “This much can be concluded without hesitation: that, as now admitted by almost all critics, _Luke’s_ Gospel presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem.” Remarkable is _Harnack’s_ latest attitude towards the Acts; it shows again that the results of modern biblical criticism are less the results of historical research than of philosophical presumptions. In his “Acts of the Apostles” _Harnack_ admits: “Very weighty observations indicate that the Acts (hence also the Gospels) were already written at the beginning of the sixties.” In substantiation he cites not less than six reasons which evidently prove it: they are based upon the principles of sound historical criticism. “These are opposed solely by the observation that the prophecy about the catastrophe of Jerusalem in some striking points comes near to the actual event, and that the reports about the Apparition and the legend of the Ascension would be hard to understand prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is hard to decide.... But it is not difficult to judge on which side the weightier arguments are” (viz., on the part of the contention for an earlier date). Yet _Harnack_ is loath to accept the better scientific reasons: they must suffer correction by presumptions. He formulates his final decision in the following way: “_Luke_ wrote at the time of _Titus_, or during the earlier time of _Domitian_ (?), but perhaps (only _perhaps_, in spite of decisive arguments) already at the beginning of the sixties.” (Recently _Harnack_ recedes to the time before the destruction of Jerusalem without, however, acknowledging a divine prophecy of this catastrophe.) Similar is this theologian’s proof that the fourth Gospel could not have been written by _John_, the son of _Zebedee_; because xxi. 20-23 (I will that he tarry till I come) cannot be a prophecy, but must have been written down after the death of the favourite disciple. “The section xx. 20-23 obviously presupposes the death of the beloved disciple; on the other hand he cannot be left out of the 21st Chapter. This 21st Chapter, however, shows no other pen than that which had written Chapters 1-20. This proves that the author of Chapter 21, hence the author of Chapters 1-20, could not have been the son of _Zebedee_, whose death is there presupposed.” The whole argument again rests upon