To do him justice, it should be noted that Mr. Sinclair warns his readers both before and after his case that his handling of the theme and their preparation for estimating it leave a great deal to be desired by those who care to see applied "the method of careful criticism." Still, he is satisfied that it is "adequate to the particular question we have been considering." And this is how Mr. Sinclair has considered:--
Anyone who will pay this controversy the compliment of a few hours' consideration is advised to bring his own judgment to bear on it in the following way: Let him begin by taking a copy of St. Mark's Gospel, which is the earliest of the four, in either of the English versions, and read it through, pencil in hand, striking out all the miraculous or quasi-miraculous stories. Then, gathering up what remains, let him read it, first as a whole, then singly, episode by episode, always keeping the eye of the imagination open, dismissing as far as possible any prepossessions, and letting the author make his own impression, without the interfering offices of critic or commentator. Having done this, let the reader ask of himself of each story: Is this a story which seems to belong to actual life, to be told of a real human being, with distinct individuality, or is it rather a literary invention, designed to add something to a conventional figure? Does the narrative move with the freedom and variety of life, or does it fit into a conventional, symmetrical design? Does the writer's style and method arouse the suspicion of literary artifice? Must one say of this or that story that its reality is the reality of life, or of an art which cunningly counterfeits life?
The open-minded reader, I trust, will hardly need to be told that what is here done is to set a false problem and ignore the real issue. Mr. Sinclair either cannot understand that issue or elects to evade it. Probably the former is the explanation. No critic of the Gospels, so far as I remember, ever suggested that any of them "cunningly counterfeits life"; and certainly no one ever pretended that Mark [15] exhibits a "conventional, symmetrical design," though Wilke argued that it "freely moulded the traditional historical material in pursuance of literary aims," and B. Weiss praises its literary colouring. It is a heap of unreal incident, fortuitously collocated, [16] and showing nothing approaching to symmetrical design. "Conventional" raises another question; in this as in all the Gospels there is plenty of convention.