The last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed, are an interpolation, because they are not to be found in the older manuscripts of the book. The Revision Committee which prepared the New Version of the New Testament pronounced them spurious. If these verses are not genuine, then it must be admitted that the second Gospel is either an unfinished or a mutilated work; for with these verses omitted, it ends abruptly with the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving the most important events at the close of Christ's career, his appearance and ascension--the proofs of his resurrection--unrecorded. The greater portion of Mark is to be found in Matthew and Luke, and much of it in the same or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review of the Gospel, says: "Mark has almost a complete parallel in Luke and Matthew taken together. There are but 24 verses which have no parallel in either of the other synoptics" (History of Christianity, p. 350). Regarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says: "Our second Gospel cannot have originated from recollections of Peter's instructions, i. e., from a source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels" (Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51). That neither Peter nor Mark had anything to do with the composition of this book is admitted by Davidson. Referring to it he says: "It has therefore no relation to the Apostle, and derives no sanction from his name. The author is unknown" (Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II, p. 84). Luke. In denying the authenticity of Mark and Luke, what I deny is that these books were written by the traditional Mark and Luke, the companions of Peter and Paul. I deny that they were written in the apostolic age and by apostolic authority. As stated by "Chambers's Encyclopedia," "the question as to their genuineness is in the main question as to the fact of their existence at this early period; the special authorship of each Gospel is a comparatively less important question."