[67] I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when
          he says that I allege that there “is no visible escape”
          from the supposition of an Ur-Marcus (p. 367).  That a
          “theologian of repute” should confound an indisputable
          fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is
          not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the
          ways of theologians might imagine.

     [68] Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a
          case of “copying” will be particularly well prepared to
          appreciate the force of the case stated in that most
          excellent little book, The Common Tradition of the
          Synoptic Gospels, by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke
          (Macmillan, 1884).  To those who have not passed through
          such painful experiences I may recommend the brief
          discussion of the genuineness of the “Casket Letters”
          in my friend Mr. Skelton’s interesting book, Maitland
          of Lethington.  The second edition of Holtzmann’s
          Lehrbuch, published in 1886, gives a remarkably fair
          and full account of the present results of criticism. 
          At p. 366 he writes that the present burning question
          is whether the “relatively primitive narrative and the
          root of the other synoptic texts is contained in
          Matthew or in Mark.  It is only on this point that
          properly-informed (sachkundige) critics differ,” and
          he decides in favour of Mark.

     [69] Holtzmann (Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, p. 75),
          following Ewald, argues that the “Source A” (= the
          threefold tradition, more or less) contained something
          that answered to the “Sermon on the Plain” immediately
          after the words of our present Mark, “And he cometh
          into a house” (iii. 19).  But what conceivable motive
          could “Mark” have for omitting it?  Holtzmann has no
          doubt, however, that the “Sermon on the Mount” is a
          compilation, or, as he calls it in his
          recently-published Lehrbuch (p. 372), “an artificial
          mosaic work.”

     [70] See Schuerer, Geschichte des juedischen Volkes,
          Zweiter Thiel, p. 384.

     [71] Spacious, because a young man could sit in it “on the
          right side” (xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room
          to spare.

     [72] King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing
          the resurrection of John the Baptist—­“John, whom I
          beheaded, he is risen” (Mark vi. 16).