And it may be noticed in passing that this passage explains an apparent difficulty in the other Gospels, where it is stated that these Apostles were called to follow Christ, after the death of St. John the Baptist; though with a suddenness and ready obedience on their part, which is hard to believe.[223] But we here learn that they had already been with Christ some months before, in company with the Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call when it came. And the passage, like many others, bears internal marks of truthfulness. In particular may be mentioned the words of Nathanael, _Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel_, implying that the latter title was at least as honourable as the former. No Christian in later times, when Christ was obviously not the King of Israel (except in a purely spiritual sense), and when the title _Son of God_ had come to mean so much more than it ever did to the Jews, would have arranged it thus. [Footnote 223: _E.g._, Mark 1. 14-20.] Lastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye-witness, it can hardly be disputed that he was the Apostle _St. John_. Indeed, were he anyone else, it is strange that an Apostle of such importance should not be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also significant that the other John, who is described in the first three Gospels as John the _Baptist_, to distinguish him from the Apostle, is here called merely _John_. No confusion could arise if, and only if, the writer himself were the Apostle John. While still more important is the fact that at the close of the Gospel, we have a solemn declaration made by the author's own friends that he was the _disciple whom Jesus loved_ (admitted by nearly everyone to be St. John), that he had witnessed the things he wrote about, and that what he said was true. And testimony more ancient or more conclusive can scarcely be imagined. With regard to the _date_ of the book, we can say little for certain. But the extreme care which is taken in these closing verses to explain exactly what Christ did, and did not say, as to St. John's dying, before His coming again, seems to imply that the matter was still undecided, in other words that St. John was still alive, though very old, when they were written. And if so the Gospel must have been _published_ (probably in some Gentile city, like Ephesus, from the way the Jews are spoken of)[224] towards the close of the first century; though a large part of it may have been _written_ in the shape of notes, etc., long before. [Footnote 224: _E.g._, John 2. 13; 5. 1; 6. 4.] (2.) _Its connection with the other Gospels._