deeds or words of Jesus, yet
from beginning to end remarkable verbal differences stand side by side
with remarkable verbal identities. Some of the identities of language
suggest irresistibly that the evangelists have used, at least in part, the
same previously existing written record. One of the clearest evidences of
this is found in the introduction, at the same place in the parallel
accounts, of the parenthesis "then saith he to the sick of the palsy"
which interrupts the words of Jesus in the cure of the paralytic (Mark ii.
10; Matt. ix. 6; Luke v. 24). When the three gospels are carefully
compared it appears that Mark contains very little that is not found in
Matthew and Luke, and that, with one or two exceptions, Luke presents in
Mark's order the matter that he has in common with the second gospel. The
same is also true of the relation between the latter part of the Gospel of
Matthew (Matt. xiv. 1 to the end) and the parallel portion of Mark; while
the comparison of Matthew's arrangement of his earlier half with Mark
suggests that the order in the first gospel has been determined by other
than chronological considerations. In a sense, therefore, we may say that
the Gospel of Mark reveals the chronological framework on which all three
of these gospels are constructed. Comparison discloses further the
interesting fact that the matter which Matthew and Luke have in common,
after subtracting their parallels to Mark, consists almost entirely of
teachings and addresses. Each gospel, however, has some matter peculiar to
itself.

27. In considering the problem presented by these facts, it is well to
remember that no one of these gospels contains within itself any statement
concerning the identity of its author. We are indebted to tradition for
the names by which we know them, and no one of them makes any claim to
apostolic origin. The earliest reference in Christian literature which may
be applied to our gospels comes from Papias, a Christian of Asia Minor in
the second century. He reports that an earlier teacher had said, "Mark,
having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not,
indeed, in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by
Christ, for he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as
I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his
hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's
discourses. So that Mark commit