was the work of some one who became a member of the church before the war and who collected the relics of the acts and sayings of reported by the introducing some traditions which he found elsewhere and filling up from his own invention his aim was probably to do honor to and the common cause to strengthen the church under the trying circumstances of the times and to be the author of a work which should be generally acceptable to his brethren that such a man should not always to strict truth seems quite consistent with human nature since in the subsequent times and in the christian church we find pious men and sincere allowing themselves to countenance palpable � p the second gospel is ascribed to mark the companion of peter for its we have the testimony of of see the recent literature on the subject of the language and author of the first gospel in der in n t � an the origin of y and others but these authorities do not decide that peter or knew what mark wrote he copied from in part and adds other historical details but these relics of reality with some matter he to have had access to one of the channels of original information not very far from its source but he is often unconscious of the nature of what be records for he saw things through the medium of his time and place and not in their original light he has lost sight of the semi political bearing of the scheme the kingdom of god with the spread of the gospel to soften the severe that appears in into a shape more fitting for readers he attempts to by repeating the amazement of the of his miracles the great numbers attracted by him the confession of the devils and the greater part of the most eloquent and in he becomes a kind of on the first gospel and we see that an intimate friend of peter some of the most striking passages of the miraculous birth and temptation of christ peter s casting himself into the sea the promise of the keys and the miracle of the fish with money in its mouth he also the dream of s wife as well as the other five dreams of the of the saints and the earthquake it is difficult to avoid concluding that he omitted these things because he did not believe them he found that they were not by peter or by any traditions of and determined that his work should not be with so much total and pure ornamental fiction it is impossible to regard mark s of these passages otherwise than as a condemnation of in later times when the means of the truth of each story had diminished and the whole four came to be believed in a mass as resting upon the same authority divine inspiration these same questionable passages have been favorite ones with christians as proving most strikingly the miraculous character of � p see i compare iii with x vi with id he of which related chiefly to the origin of christianity taken by itself the second is less intelligible than the first gospel but with that and it not only throws light on the attempt of but marks the grade in the under which his afterwards viewed him made use of both his but has many stories and of his own which he selected from popular tradition or previous writers he sometimes with and mark but sometimes from them for in his time they were not received with the same deference as now his order is confused and probably in some instances he did not know the meaning of what he repeated he does not and to suit his own times the he � the visits of to and mary the scenes at the temple the appearance of the angels to the and of to the two at � indicate a more refined imagination than the tales of joseph and the angel and the the which he adds � the lost sheep the prodigal son the good and the rich man � are equal to any in the but we find also in him the and doctrines of the more does not say he had his facts from to take all the three together � it appears that they were written a considerable time after the events they relate it is probable though not certain that the writers learned some parts from or but it is uncertain which the parts are and it is probable they are largely mingled with second hand and traditions there is strong probability that the portions of the three histories contain a tolerably correct outline of the chief events of christ s life but some errors might find their way into all three by the mistakes or inventions of the first writers or the traditions on which they all depended so in the three after making every allowance for probable veritable and fiction � there still seems to remain so much of reality that the attempt of to assume the his public preaching in and and his might be considered from the testimony of these three alone as facts deserving a place in history which on the origin of is strongly supported by other writings and subsequent events � the fourth gospel he thinks was written about a c this is of a very different character christ s are long without the kingdom of heaven is nearly lost sight of the fall of never alluded to several new subjects are introduced the of the in christ his coming down from heaven and the promise of the or holy spirit mr thinks it probable that john did not put the detached parts of the book together himself and adds that it is difficult to determine whether the or did not add the last chapter and improve upon 