and pictorial minuteness of observation bespeak the testimony of
an eye-witness, and the assertion of Papias, quoted by Eusebius,
that Mark was "the interpreter of Peter" is borne out by the
Gospel itself no less than by what we otherwise know of Mark and
Peter.

In a real though not mechanical sense, this is "the
Gospel of Peter," and its admitted priority to the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke affords substantial reason for the assumption
that it is to some extent the source whence they derive their
narratives, although Papias distinctly affirms that Mark made no
attempt at giving a carefully arranged history such as that at
which Luke confessedly aimed.

In spite of the witness of most uncial MSS. and the
valiant pleading of Dean Burgon and others, modern scholars are
well nigh unanimous in asserting that the last twelve verses of
this Gospel are an appendix. Yet less cannot honestly be said
than that they "must have been of very early date," and that they
embody "a true apostolic tradition which may have been written by
some companion or successor of the original author." In one
Armenian MS. they are attributed to Aristion.

The Good News as Recorded by Luke

Modern research has abundantly confirmed the ancient
tradition that the anonymous author of the third Gospel is none
other than "Luke the beloved physician" and the narrator of the
"Acts of the Apostles" (see. Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). Even
Renan acknowledges this, and the objections of a few extremists