(fe) Although St. Luke omits, as we have seen, 54 out of St. Mark's 223 sections, he does not always omit them entirely, but has preserved short fragments or ' scraps ' of 24 out of the 54. These 'scraps' are always misplaced in his Gospel. In fact, the departure from St. Mark's order is our chief means of detecting them. (They may be seen in the Synopsis, Table I. a.) No one is likely now to maintain that these ' scraps ' were copied directly from a written St. Mark. It is surely incredible that they should have been torn from their context and misplaced. But if these ' scraps ' came to St. Luke orally, is it conceivable that he was so careless as never to have discovered that he had a full account of them in writing before him ? 'i"o the present writer's mind the very existence in St, Luke's Go.spel of these '.scraps' is conclusive proof that he used an abbreviated St. Mark. When, therefore, these 'scraps' reached him, he was not aware that they were Markan. For, if we mistake not, there were in the Apostolic age two kinds of oral tradition, both of which contri- buted much to the composition of St. Luke's Gospel. First there was a vast body of uncodified fact, rudis indigestaque moJfs. vStriking sayings were remembered apart from their surroundings, striking deeds were recorded without mention of place or person. These passed from mouth to mouth informally. Secondly, there was the regular course of catechetical teaching preserved by those catechlsts to whose ill-requited toil St. Paul bears testimony in Gal &". From these men St. Luke derived the sections of the proto-Mark in their invariable order: from the former source he de- rived the 'scraps' of the deutero-Mark together with much other matter.
(c) St. Matthew's redactor frequently introduces non-Markan material into a Markan section, mix- ing the two together to the reader's confusion. St. Luke avoids doing this, as a rule, rightly feeling that his sources ought to be treated with respect. But, of course, all the ' scraps ' are amalgamated with and lost in other matter.
{d) There are cases in which St. Luke corrects the proto-Mark or forsakes it in favour of other
sources. Not only does he polish St. ^Mark's style in a multitude of instances, but in his third chapter he gives (with some additions) the account of the Baptist which he found in the second Source, pre- ferring it to the much shorter account which is found in St. Mark. The same thing is done in ]\Ik 322-26. He differs from the proto-Mark in hold- ing that only one of the malefactors who were hanged reviled our Lord, the other turned to Him for help (Lk 23''^) . In the account of the Eucharist (according to the true text) he puts the adminis- tration of the Cup before that of the Bread (Lk 22i'-i-'), following in all probability a local litur- gical usage of which several traces remain. Th'ese changes must have been made deliberately. And in all cases in which St. Luke or St. John corrects St. Mark, it is reasonable to believe that they had good warrant for doing so.
(e) It used to be argued that the testimony of four men is true, and those passages which are found in more than one Gospel were held to be doubly or trebly attested. Criticism has consider- ably altered our view of this matter. No doubt the ' Triple tradition ' deserves special respect. When three Gospels agree verbatim (as they seldom do for more than a few words at a time), they are reproducing a source which must be as old as, and may be considerably older than, any of them. Tradition assigns St. Mark's Gospel to St. Peter's teaching, and we are entitled to claim that at least the proto-Mark may in large measure be regarded as his work. In this there is scope for apologetics. But it is evident that, if three Evangelists are reproducing the same Source, they may be repro- ducing its defects as well as its excellences. Their agreement proves the antiquity, but not the infalli- bility, of the original. Now Papias expressly as- serts that St. Mark's Gospel is defective in order. And when we examine it critically we find that it is aiTanged topographically. It takes us first to the Jordan valley for our Lord's Baptism, then to Galilee for His ministry ; after that comes a jour- ney to Jerusalem, followed by the Passion. Finally, the lost verses must have contained a journey into Galilee, for such a joitrney is expressly enjoined on the disciples. All three Synoptics adopt this arrangement, except that the final journey into Galilee is omitted by St. Luke, belonging, as it does, to the deutero-Mark. Can we accept St. Mark's arrangement, supported, as it is, by St. Matthew and St. Luke ? Is the testimony of three men true ? No one untU quite modern times has ever thought so. The traditional account is that it is partly true. The Galilaean ministry was broken by visits to Jerusalem, which St. John alone records. In ignoring them the Synoptists were wrong. But the ministry in Jerusalem which the Synoptists give is assumed to have been un- broken by visits to Galilee, and must therefore merely be adjusted with Jn 12-20. This is im- probable. St. Mark assigns 360 verses to the ministry in Galilee, which is commonly supposed to have lasted three years. 251 to the ministry in Jerusalem, which lasted about a \veek. Events in real history seldom move so rapidly. Our conten- tion is that St. Mark is, as Papias says, and as his contemporaries probably well knew, defective in arrangement. Not only ought the ministry in the North to be broken by several visits to Jerusalem, but St. Mark's account of the ministry in Jeru- salem ought to be broken by several visits to Galilee. Both ministries must be split up and dovetailed together, if we would attain to the true sequence of events. St. John corrects St. Mark by putting the Cleansing of the Temple into the first year's ministry (Jn 213-22) in.stead of the last. The traditional view that there were two cleans- ings is discredited in every other case, and is parti-