We could not indeed psychologically account for the development of the resurrection faith after the crucifixion, if before it Jesus' life and utterances had not been such as to make his manifestation in glory seem to the disciples just what they _ought_ to have expected. But, conversely, nothing is more certain than the fact that they _did not_ expect it; and that when the belief had become established by other means, the attitude toward the "sayings and doings" maintained by those who had them to relate--as we know, the most successful missionary of all felt it no handicap to be entirely without them--was one of looking back into an obscure past for things whose pregnant significance became appreciable only in the light of present knowledge. "These things understood not his disciples at the first, but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things had been written of him, and that they had done these things unto him." We are fortunate in having even one example of the "consecutive narratives" (_diegeses_) referred to in Luke i. 1. Our Mark is a gospel written purely and simply from this point of view, aiming only to show how the earthly career of Jesus gave evidence that this was the Son of God, predestined to exaltation to the right hand of power, with little attempt, if any, to bring in the precepts of the New Law. We should realize, however, that this is already a beginning in the process soon to become controlling, a process of carrying back into the earthly life of Jesus in Galilee of first this trait, then that, then all the attributes of the glorified Lord. Ancient and reliable tradition informs us that this first endeavour to tell the story of "Jesus Christ the Son of God" was composed at Rome by John Mark, a former companion of both Peter and Paul, from data drawn from the anecdotes casually employed by Peter in his preaching. There is much to confirm this in the structure, the style, and the doctrinal object and standpoint of the Gospel.