by he l of the ambition of two t the to which the of approaching trial connected with of again on the first of the preceding of the leads in mark and to observation tin did not words of us and yet feared to ask them it may be that and i oil the subject among then association of caused the o introduce the for pre ence carried on in the of � tliis i not to of for there between the of the and the dispute of the of coin for by peter with the above for ri another anecdote is indirectly connected by of the child which is put forward on one of those children arc brought to lie may bless the wish to prevent it but us the su cr to unto me and adds only fur ji those who resemble is kingdom of heaven declined ix ff x at ff this narrative points of to that of the child placed ui the of the in pre s children as a model and declares that only those who resemble can r the of god in both the appear in the light of to children and i in both mark says that took the in his arms a if these points of bo adequate for the two to one the latter must beyond be as the to truth of je ts t tf r wliich from original form in all the ih the of � � � could have been uttered on other the sentences on as of tn in connection with the about rank might very well been uttered � n the above described in to previous about rank nevertheless this mi ht be the for up h � ng an a originally since it is at least evident that inserted the � ii n in both on account of the between the two scenes s of during bis first residence in according to john ff to the hu t suit ik ufe of ff of ike coin mo ii and them w� re separate n r difference there u the and in namely the former in relation lo the conduct of � merely in general terms of an iii iv john na made a of vm u it mi for again to e former he all the alike he appears according lo to make some distinction and to use tlie of more mildly moreover not tliat he dim o out the nt well the there also a as to the by on the oc in ihe ik s it is given the form of an exact old te in john ly a a free but above all is a difference as to the result in the fourth gospel ia called to account in tho wc read nothing of this and according to it ia not until the day li put to a question which to have to of temple xxi ff to which replies quite c than to the in the fourth i el to the repetition of such a tire it is the abuse ot likely lo on the and on e cry of it would i anew called on to jo tliat moreover temple in john ts indicated to be an earlier event than in the by tlie tliat the fourth ti represents na as being immediately called to account while in t e case appears a natural of heightened consideration which ite liad in tlie allowing lo full weight the a between the two wc have in ihe same abuse the same violent mode of it by out the ix and ing ai aa it tables nay ine same language in justification of this for in john as well as in the of contain � reference though not a precise one to vii these important of must at least such an n that of t ly two but alike were by the of the t w being to the bat thus seems dear know as little of an e event of this kind as in fact of an earlier of to and the fourth to i� s ed over the of temple after the u t entrance of into metropolis not be cause lie presumed it lo be known from other � ua lu � c l j s � f l t ef � c up but because lie believed tliat lie must an to the sole feet of tlie kind which lie acquainted it then each of the knew only of one of the temple wc arc not by the lit in the de of the event or hy the in its to suppose tliat were two since an hy no rate in aiid arc quite natural in writings oi origin it is foi o with justice tliat our modem have after the example of older declared in favour of the identity of two on lies the error v wa know bow the of the present day will decide on thi i in of the fourth according to the treatment of tiie different of the more to tlie old testament are f ie writer was an eye and car of tho while aa to it u well known that thi i t in no degree regarded by he t hut only by john whence according to to surrender narrative of the latter to that of the former would be to the certain for the a� to a we may than by a peculiar to mark ami would not man carry through the v which in the custom did not permit the court of the temple to be made a c t if this is put to the account of mark s ascertained for cm nt what us to similar artistic from the as proofs of bis having been an to appeal here to his of eye witness a� a ii l is too glaring a at in the point of view 