Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels. Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know “the _certainty_ of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as much credit as Josephus? In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should be constantly borne in mind, that _omission_ (except under special circumstances) _is not contradiction_. The facts of history, like the conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the transaction deemed to be as shown upon _all_ the evidence. _Positive_ testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the _negative_ testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.