(1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have lived in the first century, and to have been an eye-witness of what he describes; so probably St. John. (2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant to supplement them; and it does not show a different Christ, either in language or character. (3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This admitted to be by St. John, and the Gospel was probably by the same author. Having decided in the last chapter that the Four Gospels are probably genuine from _external testimony_, we pass on now to the _internal evidence_, which, it will be seen, strongly supports this conclusion. For convenience we will examine the first Three, commonly called the _Synoptic_ Gospels, separately from the Fourth, which is of a different character. (_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. In dealing with these Gospels, we will first consider their general accuracy, then their sources, and then their probable date. (1.) _Their general accuracy._ It is now admitted by everyone that the writers show a thorough acquaintance with Palestine both as to its geography, history, and people, especially the political and social state of the country in the half-century preceding the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about A.D. 95, gives us a vivid description of this; and everything we read in the Gospels is in entire agreement with it. In regard to the actual events recorded, we have, as a rule, no other account, but where we have, with the doubtful exception of the enrolment under _Quirinius_, their accuracy is fully confirmed. According to St. Luke[196] this enrolment occurred while Herod was king, and therefore not later than what we now call B.C. 4, when Herod died; but, according to Josephus and other authorities, Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and carried out his taxing in A.D. 6. [Footnote 196: Luke 2. 2 (R.V.).] This used to be thought one of the most serious mistakes in the Bible, but modern discoveries have shown that it is probably correct. To begin with, an inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764, which shows that Quirinius was _twice_ Governor of Syria, or at least held some important office there. And this has been confirmed quite recently by an inscription found at Antioch, which shows that the former time was about B.C. 7.[197] There is thus very likely an end of that difficulty, though it must be admitted that it would place the birth of Christ a little earlier than the usually accepted B.C. 4, which however some critics think probable for other reasons. [Footnote 197: Ramsay, 'Bearing of Recent Discovery on New Testament.' 1915, p. 285-292.]