o ask, Did they use an original form of
the second Gospel, a form to which German scholars apply the name
_Ur-Marcus_ and French scholars apply the name _Proto-Marc_, or did
they omit passages in Mark which suggested difficulties or appeared
unnecessary? The main argument against the existence of a Proto-Mark
is that neither Papias nor any known Father of the Church preserves the
least recollection of it. It has simply been invented to account for
the difficulties of the Synoptic problem. If, on the other hand, St.
Matthew and St. Luke deliberately abbreviated or altered the narrative
of St. Mark, we must naturally inquire why they did so. The authors
who maintain that they did alter the material which lay before them,
account for some of the changes as having been made from a mere desire
to abbreviate, or to remove a few verses which might prove "hard
sayings" to Jewish or Gentile Christians respectively. Some think that
other passages in Mark were emitted because St. Matthew and St. Luke
considered them to be derogatory to our Lord's power or the character
of His apostles. For instance, St. Matthew omits the rebuke
administered to the apostles in Mark viii. 17, 18, and he does not
mention our Lord's use of spittle as a means of healing. He also in
ch. xiii. 55 represents the Jews as calling our Lord "the carpenter's
son," whereas in Mark vi. 3 they call Him "the carpenter."

This latter line of argument is often hazardous and occasionally
profane. And in special reference to the points just {24} described,
we may remark that St. Matthew in ch. xiv. 28-33 does not hesitate to
record the weakness of even St. Peter's faith; and that St. John,
although he gives the greatest prominence to the majesty of our Lord,
does in ch. ix. 6 record His use of spittle in healing. And if St.
Matthew thought it irreverent to record the fact that the Jews called
Jesus "the carpenter," he might have naturally shrunk far more from
saying, as he does, that they named Him "the carpenter's son," a title
which might seem to imply an ignoring of His miraculous birth.

It seems, therefore, that we must be content to acknowledge that we
cannot always determine the reasons which influenced St. Matthew and
St. Luke, but we can say that in some cases they were probably
influenced by the mere desire to abbreviate, and that they were also
influenced by the forms which the oral teaching of the Gospel had
assumed. We may also regard it as alm