On the other hand, there are several _undesigned agreements_ between the Gospels, which are a strong argument in favour of their accuracy. Take, for instance, the accusation brought against Christ of destroying the Temple, and rebuilding it in three days. This is alluded to both by St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. John alone records the words on which it was founded, though he does not mention the charge, and quotes the words in quite a different connection.[232] [Footnote 232: Matt. 26. 61; Mark 14. 58; John 2. 19.] Or take the Feeding of the five thousand.[233] St. Mark says that this occurred in a desert place, where Christ had gone for a short rest, and to avoid the crowd of persons who were _coming and going_ at Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to why there was this crowd just at that time. St. John says nothing about Christ's going to the desert, nor of the crowd which occasioned it; but he happens to mention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly before the Passover. Now we know that at the time of the Passover numbers of people came to Jerusalem from all parts; so Capernaum, which lay on a main road from the north, would naturally be crowded with persons _coming and going_. And this explains everything; even St. Mark's little detail, as to the people sitting on the _green_ grass, for grass is only green in Palestine in the spring, _i.e._, at the time of the Passover. But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth Gospel purposely made his account to agree with the others, yet did this in such a way that not one reader in a hundred ever discovers it? The only reasonable explanation is that the event was true, and that both writers had independent knowledge of it. [Footnote 233: Matt. 14. 13; Mark 6. 31; Luke 9. 10; John 6. 4.] The objection, then, as to the connection of the Fourth Gospel with the other three must be put aside. It was plainly meant to _supplement_ them; and it shows not a different Christ, either in _language_ or _character_, but merely a different aspect of the same Christ, while the slight _discrepancies_, especially when combined with the undesigned coincidences, rather support its genuineness. (3.) _Its connection with the Book of Revelation._ We pass on now to the other argument. The Book of Revelation is generally admitted to be the work of St. John, and it is ascribed to him by Justin Martyr.[234] Its date is usually fixed at A.D. 68; though many critics prefer A.D. 95, which is the date given by Irenæus. [Footnote 234: Dial., 81.]