adily
tending towards this conclusion. The chief reasons for it are
undoubtedly that (i.) the order of facts in Mark is the _normal order_
of the whole narrative of the Synoptists, and (ii.) in the main, the
language of Mark explains the verbal agreements between Matt. and Luke.
Therefore among the probable conclusions with regard to the Synoptic
problem we must reckon the fact that _Mark is earlier than Matt. and
Luke, and was employed in the composition of them both_. This is the
first important conclusion.

But we must also allow room for the influence of oral tradition.

We have already noticed many differences between the Synoptists, all of
which more or less suggest that the Gospels are largely based on oral
tradition. We may now mention a few other facts which point in the
same direction. There are cases in which Matt. or Luke has a more
decided appearance of originality than Mark. These cases include
words, phrases, and even sections. For instance, Matt. employs several
times the phrase "the Father who is in heaven," a phrase which our Lord
must certainly have used, but which in Mark only occurs once (xi. 25).
Mark i. 40-45, ii. 1-12, iii. 1-6, x. 35, appear less original than the
parallel passages in the other Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, there are
statements in Matt. of a striking kind, which are not at all likely to
have been invented, but which are entirely absent from Mark. We may
notice the texts, "Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not
into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel" (Matt. x. 5, 6); and again, "I was not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. xv. 24). In both cases
the context has a parallel in Mark, but the verses in question do not
occur in those parallels.

Also there are certain passages to be found in Mark which are in
neither Luke nor Matt. If we believe that the Gospels {23} are largely
based on oral tradition, it is easy to account for the absence of a
passage in one or two of the three Synoptic Gospels. An incident which
was remembered in one place might be forgotten in another. But if we
exclude the influence of oral tradition, there are only two solutions
of the problem raised by these passages. Either (a) St. Matthew and
St. Luke were ignorant of them, because they were added to Mark later
than the date when they used Mark; or (b) they knew them and omitted
them. In other words, we have t