pious parents, they had been trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and it will be seen that, in Peter, James and John, Jesus chose ideal persons for the duty of witnessing and recording the essential facts and doctrines of His manifestation to men. It will be necessary to speak more particularly about Peter, James and John in connection with the Gospels of which they were respectively, either in whole or in part, the composers. So far as can be learned, Andrew did not take an equally prominent part in the composition of the Gospels. He merely assisted, like the rest of the disciples, with his memory and advice. Peter There is no need to repeat here the reasons which have led the great majority of commentators to hold that Mark derived the materials for his Gospel from Simon Peter. They are well known to New Testament students, and I see no reason to doubt their validity. The features of the narration agree well with Peter's powerful but somewhat impulsive character. I assume then that, in company with the other disciples, he reported some of our Lord's utterances, and some of the incidents of His ministry. : There are but few facts and sayings mentioned in Mark— and those but briefly-which may not also be found in either Matthew or Luke or both. The following are peculiar to this Gospel Our Lord's request that a little boat should wait on Him (iii. 9); the intention of the friends of Jesus to lay hold on Him in the belief that He was out of His mind (iii. 21); the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida (viii. 22-26); our Lord's injunction to His disciples to tell no man about His transfiguration until after His resurrection (ix. 9); and His entry into the temple and retirement to Bethany on the evening of the first day of His last visit to Jerusalem (xi. 11). What is most striking in Mark is the perception of slight details which seem to have escaped the notice of the other historians. For instance: Both Mark and Luke mention the people's astonishment at our Lord's authoritative manner in His teaching; but the former alone adds "not as the scribes " (i. 22). Mark is the only one who records the surname "Boanerges," given to the sons of Zebedee (iii. 17). In relating along with Matthew how the people of Gennesaret brought their sick friends to Jesus, Mark notices that they carried them on their beds (vi. 55.) In describing the case of the afflicted lad brought by his father to Jesus immediately after the Transfiguration, Mark's account is much fuller than that of either Matthew or Luke (ix. 14-29). Narrating the second cleansing of the Temple, Mark alone of the Synoptics observes that our Lord would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the Temple. (xi. 16). Matthew and Mark relate how a lawyer or scribe enquired of Jesus which was the greatest commandment; but the second Evangelist only records the scribe's answer to our Lord's reply and our Lord's approving rejoinder (xii. 32-34). It is Mark alone who gives the original Aramaic and Hebrew words used by Jesus when working two of His miracles: "Talitha cumi" (v. 41); and "Ephphatha" (vii. 34). These features of Mark's Gospel are quite consistent with the view that it is composed of the notes of Christ's sayings made at the time by Peter, and of the united testimony of the Apostles to His doings recorded by him immediately after their occurrence. But they can hardly be reconciled with any one of the existing theories. It was not because of an imperfect acquaintance with Greek that Peter handed over to Mark the task of translating and editing his notes. That he had a good command of that language is proved by his conversation with Cornelius, and by the foremost position he held in the Jerusalem Church. By the time the Gospel was redacted he would have almost discontinued the use of Aramaic. The Galileans, who at first formed so large a proportion of the Church, had long since been scattered abroad by persecution, and Peter himself had travelled and laboured in lands where Greek was the prevailing tongue. But although he spoke Greek with ease it is doubtful whether he ever did much writing in that language. There is no need to attach much weight to the old tradition that Peter employed an interpreter to write his Epistles. Apart from the improbability that when he indited them he was in the habit of speaking only in Aramaic, the style of their composition is adverse to the opinion that they are translations from another tongue. But it is not unlikely that, like Paul, he dictated his letters to an amanuensis, and this may be the basis of truth upon which the tradition was built. It is probable that Mark was the scribe in both cases, as it appears that he was with Peter at Babylon when the first Epistle was written, and there is no hint that he would accompany Silas, who was to carry the letter with him on his journey west (1 Peter v. 12, 13). Fluent in speech, full of energy and vigour, burdened with numerous duties and responsibilities, Peter would have little time or inclination for the drudgery of literary work, and he would gladly place his papers in the hands of a competent man like Mark to translate into Greek and arrange for publication. Mark The proper name of this Evangelist was the Jewish name John; but the surname Marcus was given him, perhaps to distinguish him from John the son of Zebedee. He was a cousin of Barnabas, who was a Levite, but belonged to a Cyprus family, of which island he was probably himself a native. A number of words of Latin origin are found in his Gospel, these, taken along with his Latin surname, suggest that he had associated with people who spoke that language. It is not quite certain whether he was in Judea or Galilee during the time of our Lord's ministry or had any personal knowledge of the facts he relates. It is usually supposed, however, and with reason, that he was himself the young man mentioned Mark xiv. 51, 52. It is thought that he was then living with his mother at Jerusalem, as was certainly the case at the time of Peter's miraculous deliverance from prison (A.D. 44). From Peter's speaking of him as his son (1 Peter v. 13) it may be inferred that Mark was much younger than the Apostle. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey as far as Perga in Pamphylia, whence, to the great annoyance of Paul, he returned to Jerusalem. About three years later he went with Barnabas on a second journey; about which the only information afforded is that they proceeded to Cyprus. He was at Rome with Paul during the latter's first imprisonment (A.D. 61-63) and some time after appears to have been with Peter at Babylon (1 Peter v. 13). The latest mention of him in the New Testament is in Paul's second Epistle to Timothy (iv. 11) who was then at Ephesus, in which epistle the Apostle requests Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome, giving as his reason that he was useful to him for ministering. It is generally understood that Papias, in the extracts from his writings quoted elsewhere, intends to say that Mark recorded in his Gospel the substance of Peter's oral teaching. This is more definitely asserted by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Origen, Clement, Tertullian and later writers. Papias' words however will quite as well bear the construction that Mark obtained his materials from Peter in the shape of written documents, and in all probability that is what he really meant. It does not much matter however, for when he wrote, thirty or forty years had elapsed since the Gospel was composed, and, although his statement is deserving of attention as to the general fact that Mark acquired his materials from the Apostle, he might easily have been mistaken as to the shape of the materials which he received. As to the statements of later writers on such a subject, they are not worth consideration. If the tradition that Mark wrote at Rome be correct, or if he wrote at Babylon, which is far more likely, it cannot possibly be true that the Book is composed of the substance of Peter's oral teaching. For Peter's preaching either at Rome or Babylon, would certainly have been in Greek, and the Gospel of Mark is manifestly a translation from Aramaic. It happens too that we have some specimens of Peter's oral teaching or preaching preserved in the Acts of the Apostles, and these do not bear the least resemblance to any part of Mark's Gospel. The chronological order of Mark, if not quite exact, is far more so than either Matthew or Luke, and conveys the impression that the original writer, who was a man with an excellent memory, was readily accessible to the redactor, at the time he was engaged at his task. Putting everything together the probability is that the redaction of the Gospel of Mark was in this wise: In the troublous times times preceding the siege of Jerusalem, Peter removed to Babylon. About the same time, Paul having been released from prison and started on his journey west, Mark left Rome and came to Jerusalem, whence he either accompanied or followed Peter to Babylon. The comparative leisure which they enjoyed in that city, afforded at last an opportunity for the preparation of Peter's notes for publication. This duty he deputed to Mark, and the latter translated and redacted the notes accordingly, availing himself of Peter's personal assistance, when necessary, in their arrangement. James I have elsewhere stated my reasons for believing that James was the writer of the greater part of the notes embodied in the Gospel of Luke. It is not strange that he did not himself undertake the task of translating and editing his manuscripts. Amongst all the followers of Jesus he is the only one about whom we have certain information as to the time and manner of his death. In the year 44 he was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. During the interval of fourteen years between our Lord's resurrection and James' death, he was like Peter and |