XXIV PREFACE 



before him, lie could leave out the miraculous 

 conception of Jesus and the ascension ? Further, 

 ecclesiastical tradition would have us believe that 

 Mark wrote down his recollections of what Peter 

 taught. Did Peter then omit to mention these 

 matters ? Did the fact testified by the oldest 

 authority extant, that the first appearance of the 

 risen Jesus was to himself seem not worth men- 

 tioning ? Did he really fail to speak of the great 

 position in the Church solemnly assigned to him by 

 Jesus ? The alternative would seem to be the 

 impeachment either of Mark's memory, or of his 

 judgment. But Mark's memory, is so good that 

 he can recollect how, on the occasion of the stilling 

 of the waves, Jesus was asleep " on the cushion," 

 he remembers that the woman with the issue had 

 " spent all she had " on her physicians ; that 

 there was not room " even about the door " on a 

 certain occasion at Capernaum. And it is surely 

 hard to believe that " Mark " should have failed to 

 recollect occurrences of infinitely greater moment, 

 or that he should have deliberately left them out, 

 as things not worthy of mention. 



b. The supposition that " Matthew " was 

 acquainted with " Luke," or " Luke" with 

 "Matthew" has equally grave implications. If 

 that be so, the one who used the other could have 

 had but a poor opinion of his predecessor's his- 

 torical veracity. If, as most experts agree, " Luke " 

 is later than " Matthew," it is clear that he does 



