PREFACE xxiii 



been extant in three or more, somewhat different 

 versions. 



VIII. The suppositions (a) that " Mark " had 

 "Matthew" and "Luke" before him; and (/;) 

 that either of the two latter was acquainted with 

 the work of the other, would seem to involve some 

 singular consequences. 



a. The second Gospel is saturated with the 

 lowest supernaturalism. Jesus is exhibited 

 as a wonder-worker and exorcist of the first rank. 

 The earliest public recognition of the Messiahship 

 of Jesus comes from an " unclean spirit"; he him- 

 self is made to testify to the occurrence of the 

 miraculous feeding twice over. 



The purpose with which " Mark " sets out is 

 to show forth Jesus as the Son of God, and it is 

 suggested, if not distinctly stated, that he ac- 

 quired this character at his baptism by John. 

 The absence of any reference to the miraculous 

 events of the infancy, detailed by "Matthew" 

 and "Luke;" or to the appearances after the 

 discovery of the emptiness of the tomb ; is unin- 

 telligible, if " Mark " knew anything about them, 

 or believed in the miraculous conception. The 

 second Gospel is no summary : " Mark " can find 

 room for the detailed story, irrelevant to his main 

 purpose, of the beheading of John the Baptist, and 

 his miraculous narrations are crowded with minute 

 particulars. Is it to be imagined that, with 

 the supposed apostolic authority of Matthew 



