words can certainly, and of the second probably, be accounted for by the subject-matter. There is here practically no evidence of distinct vocabularies. Even if there were, it would be fully offset by the use of words having no necessary connection with any particular subject-matter, and therefore equally likely to occur in any part of the Gospel. Five such words are the adverbs εὐθὺς, πάλιν, πολλὰ, οὐκέτι, and οὔπω. Of these, the first (Mark's most characteristic word) is used seventeen times by M1, fifteen by M2, and ten by Ev. Considering the relative amounts of narrative matter ascribed to the three, this usage seems to indicate an equal fondness for this word among them. The second (πάλιν) is used ten times by M1, eight times by M2, and nine times by Ev; the third (πολλὰ) is used adverbially three times by M1, six times by M2, and three times by Ev; the fourth (οὐκέτι), twice by M1, twice by M2, three times by Ev; the fifth (οὔπω), once by M1 and four times by Ev. Characteristic of Mark also is his use of the imperfects ἔλεγεν and ἔλεγον. They are found fourteen times in M1, fifteen times in M2, and twenty-one times in the passages ascribed to Ev. Of the forty-one verses listed on p. 246 as standing in both Mark and Q, thirty-four are in passages assigned by Wendling to Ev. This would seem to tell in Wendling's favor, since the last writer who had a hand in the making of the Gospel of Mark would naturally be the one most likely to make use of Q. Three verses, however, occur in passages assigned to M1, and four in M2. This would indicate that all three writers, besides having the same favorite words, were acquainted with and made some use of Q. The item of the relation of the various writers to Q, however, has little or no significance; since it is the sections having the greatest amount of logian matter and the least narrative, that are assigned to Ev. The cumulative effect of these considerations is very much to the discredit of Wendling's assumption of three different writers for our Gospel of Mark. It cannot, to be sure, disprove that assumption; but it at least shows a lack of proof where proof would be most easily found and most convincing. MATTHEW AND LUKE USED OUR MARK AS A SOURCE Even if Wendling's analysis had been capable of substantiation on linguistic grounds, his division of our Gospel of Mark into three strands from three different authors would not help us toward an Ur-Marcus lying behind our Gospels of Matthew and Luke. For Matthew or Luke or both of them follow Mark in all the transpositions, dislocations, and other misarrangements of his Gospel. Whether these features stood in the original Mark or not, they evidently stood in the Mark used by Matthew and Luke.