SINCE the Gospels came to be studied as historical documents rather than as mere treatises for edification, the work of St Mark has emerged from a long period of unmerited neglect to take its place as a primary authority for the life and teaching of Jesus. The preeminent position which is assigned to this document by modern scholars is no new thing: it is the original standing restored. For if the conclusions reached by students of the Synoptic Problem are correct, Mark enjoyed in the days when the Gospels first came into being a reputation very similar to that which it has to-day. ‘ The Gospel according to Matthew is a fresh edition of Mark, revised, rearranged, and enriched with new material; the Gospel according to Luke is a new historical work, made by combining parts of Mark with parts of other documents.’ This means that out of all the available material our First Evangelist chose Mark as the foundation of his work and that St Luke at least chose it as a trustworthy document out of the several accounts with which he was acquainted. If Canon Streeter's Proto- Luke hypothesis is sound, we can go even farther and say that St Luke found it necessary to revise and enlarge his earlier work in order to admit a new source which he recognised as a first-rate authority.