gression, the rhetoric, the prearranged plan.1 Let us add that the diction of Jesus is nowhere to be found in the discourses of which we speak. The expression "Kingdom of God," so common with the Master,2 appears only once (iii. 3, 5). On the other hand, the style of the discourses attributed to Jesus by the Fourth Gospel offers the most complete analogy to that of the narrative parts of the same Gospel, and to that of the author of the epistles called John's. We see that the author of the Fourth Gospel, in writing these discourses, followed not his recollections, but the somewhat monotonous movement of his own thought. Quite a new mystical language is displayed in them, language characterised by the frequent employment of the words "world," "truth," "life," "light," "darkness," resembling much less that of the Synoptics than that of the Book of Wisdom, Philo, and the Valentinians. If Jesus had ever spoken in that style, neither Hebrew nor Jewish, how does it come that, among his hearers, only a single one has so well kept the secret?

For the rest, literary history offers an example which presents a certain analogy to the historic phenomenon we have just described, and which serves to explain it. Socrates, who, like Jesus, did not write, is known to us through two of his disciples, Xenophon and Plato, - the former corresponding with the Synoptics in his clear, transparent, and impersonal style of composition; the latter, by his strong individuality, recalling the author of the Fourth Gospel. In order to expound the Socratic teaching, must we follow the "Dialogues" of Plato, or the "Talks" of Xenophon? In such a case doubt is not possible; every one sticks to the "Talks" and not to the "Dialogues." Does Plato nevertheless teach us nothing concerning Socrates? In writing the biography of Socrates, would it be good criticism to neglect the Dialogues? Who would dare to maintain this?

Without pronouncing upon the main question, as to what hand indited the Fourth Gospel, even if we were persuaded it was

not that of the son of Zebedee,

we can admit, then, that this work possesses some title to be called the "Gospel according to John." The historic sketch of the Fourth Gospel is, in my

1 For example, chap. xvii.

2 Besides the Synoptics, this is evident in the Acts, the Fauline epistles, and the Apocalypse.

opinion, the life of Jesus as it was known to the immediate circle of John. It is also my belief that this school was better acquainted with numerous outward circumstances of the life of the founder than the group whose recollections go to make up the Synoptic Gospels. Notably, in regard to the sojourns of Jesus at Jerusalem, it was in possession of facts which the other churches had not. "John the Elder," who is probably not a different person from the Apostle John, regarded, it is said, the narrative of Mark as incomplete and confused; he even had a theory to explain the omissions of this narrative.1 Certain passages in Luke, which are a kind of echo of the Johannine traditions, prove, moreover, that the traditions preserved by the Fourth Gospel were not a thing entirely unknown to the rest of the Christian family.

These explanations will suffice, I think, to show the motives which in the course of my narrative have determined me to give the preference to this or that one of the four guides whom we follow in the life of Jesus. On the whole, I admit the four canonical Gospels as documents of good faith. All four belong to the century following the death of Jesus; but their historic value is very diverse. Matthew evidently merits especial confidence in respect of the discourses: here are the Logia, the very notes taken from a clear and lively memory of the teaching of Jesus. A sort of outburst at once mild and terrible, a divine force, if I may call it so, underlines these words, detaches them from the context, and to the critic renders them easily distinguishable. The person who undertakes the task of weaving out of the Gospel story a consecutive narrative has here an excellent touchstone. The actual words of Jesus, so to speak, reveal themselves:

1 Papias, loc. cit. (See above p. 46).

2 Such are the pardon of the sinful woman; the implied knowledge of the family at Bethany; the character of Martha, corresponding to dinkóvel in John (xii. 2); the idea given of the journeys of Jesus in Samaria, even (it would seem) of his several visits to Jerusalem; the curious likeness be- . tween the Lazarus of Luke and that of John; the incident of the woman who wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair; the idea that Jesus appeared at his trial before three authorities; the opinion indicated by the author of the third Gospel that several disciples were present at his crucifixion; the notices as to the part played by Annas in connection with Caiaphas; the apparition of the angel at Gethsemane (cf. John xii. 28, 29).

as soon as we touch them, in this chaos of traditions of unequal authority, we feel them throb with life; they translate themselves (as it were) spontaneously, and fit into the narrative of their own accord, standing out in high relief.

The narrative parts grouped in the first Gospel about this primitive nucleus have not the same authority. In them are to be found many legends of quite undefined outline, which proceeded from the piety of the second Christian generation.1 The accounts which Matthew has in common with Mark show faults of transcription which prove a slight acquaintance with Palestine. Many episodes are twice repeated, certain persons are duplicated, showing that different sources have been utilized and unskilfully mixed. The Gospel of Mark is much more firm, more precise, less weighted with circumstances added at a later date. Of the three Synoptics it is the one which has remained the most primitive, the most original, that to which were added the fewest later elements. Material details are given 12 Mark with a clearness which we should seek in vain in the other evangelists. He delights to report certain sayings of Jesus in Syro-Chaldean." His observations are most minute, and come, no doubt, from an eyewitness. There is nothing to disprove that this eye-witness, who evidently had followed Jesus, who had loved him and observed him very closely, and who had preserved a lively image of him, was the Apostle Peter himself, as is maintained by Papias.

4

As for the work of Luke, its historic value is manifestly inferior. It is a document at second hand. Its manner of narration is more matured. The sayings of Jesus are there more reflective, more sententious. Some sentences are exaggerated and distorted. Writing

1 Especially chaps. i. ii. See also xxvii. 3-10, 19, 51-53, 60; xxviii. 2-7, comparing Mark.

2 Comp. Matt. xv. 39 with Mark viii. 10. (See Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Inscr., etc., Aug. 17, 1866.)

Comp. Matt. ix. 27-31; xx. 29-34, with Mark viii. 22-26; x. 46–52 : Matt. xiii. 28-34 with Mark v. 1-20: Matt. xii. 38-42 with xvi. 1-4: ix. 34 with xii. 24-28.

4 For example, compare Mark xv. 23 with Matt. xxvii. 34.

5 Chaps. v. 41; vii. 34; xiv. 36; xv. 34. Matthew shows this quality only in xxvii. 46.

• Chap. xiv. 26. The rules of apostleship (x. 4, 7) have an especially exaggerated tone.

6

7

2

outside Palestine, and certainly after the siege of Jerusalem,1 the author indicates the places with less exactness than the other two Synoptics; he is too fond of representing the temple as a house of prayer, where people go to perform their devotions; he does not speak of the Herodians; he softens details in order to bring the different narratives into closer agreement; 8 he smooths over passages which had become embarrassing because of the more exalted idea which people around him had attained to in regard to the divinity of Jesus; he exaggerates the marvellous; he commits errors of chronology and of topography; he omits the Hebraic glosses; he appears to know little of Hebrew; he does not quote a word of Jesus in that language; he calls all the localities by their Greek names; he corrects at times in a clumsy manner the sayings of Jesus.10 We perceive in the author a compiler, a man who has not himself seen the witnesses, who labours at the texts, and permits himself great violences in order to make them agree. Luke had probably under his eyes the original narrative of Mark and the Logia of Matthew. But he treats them with great freedom: at times he runs two anecdotes or two parables together to make one; 11 sometimes he divides one so as

8

1 Chaps. xix. 41, 43, 44; xxi. 9, 20; xxiii. 29.

2 Chaps. ii. 37;

Chap. iv. 16;

Chap. iii. 23;

xviii. 10–13; xxiv. 53.

comp. note 3 on chap. ii. (below).

Mark. xiii. 32 and Matt. xxiv. 36 are omitted.

5 Chaps. iv. 14; xxii. 43, 44.

9

• Regarding the taxing of Quirinius (Cyrenius), the revolt of Theudas, and perhaps the mention of Lysanias, though as to this last his accuracy may be defended. (See Mission de Phénicie, p. 347 et seq.; Corp. inscr. Gr. No. 4521 with the addenda. Josephus, Antiq. XVIII. vi. 10; XIX. v. 1; XX. vii. 1: Bell. Jud. II. xi. 5, xii. 8.

7 Comp. Luke xxiv. 13 with Josephus, Wars, VII. vi. 6 (ed. Dindorf); chap. i. 39 is also suspected of error.

8 Comp. Luke i. 34 with Matt. i. 21; Luke xx. 46 with Matt. xxiii. 7, 8. Luke avoids the words abba, rabbi, corbona, corban, raca, Boanerges.

? Jerome In Isaiam, vi. (Opp. ed. Martianay, iii. 63, 64). The Hebraisms of his style, with certain Jewish traits (such as Acts i. 12), came probably from persons he talked with, books he read, and documents he followed.

10 For example, pyov (Matt. xi. 19) becomes in Luke (vii. 35) Tékvwv, which reading, by a sort of reflex action, has found its way into most MSS. of Matthew.

11 For example, xix. 12-27, where the parable of the talents is confused

2

to make two. He interprets the documents according to his own mind; he has not the absolute impartiality of Matthew and Mark. We might add, concerning his tastes and personal tendencies, that he is a very exact devotee; he holds that Jesus has accomplished all the Jewish rites; he is a passionate democrat and Ebionite: that is to say, much opposed to property, and is persuaded that the poor will soon have their revenge; he is specially partial to the anecdotes which put into relief the conversion of sinners and the exaltation of the humble; he frequently modifies the ancient traditions so as to give them this turn. In his first pages he includes legends touching the infancy of Jesus, told with the long amplifications, the canticles, and the conventional proceedings, which constitute the essential feature of the apocry phal Gospels. Finally, in the account of the last hours of Jesus, he introduces some circumstances full of a tender sentiment, as well as certain sayings of Jesus of rare beauty," not found in the more authentic narratives, in which can be detected the work of legend. Luke probably borrowed them from a later collection, in which the chief aim was to excite sentiments of piety.

A great reserve was naturally required in regard to a document of this nature. It would have been as little scientific to neglect

(ver. 12, 14, 15, 27) with one regarding rebel subjects. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (chap. xvi.) contains features that have little to do with the main subject (the sores, the dogs, and ver. 23–27).

1 Thus the feast at Bethany yields him two accounts (vii. 36-48; x. 38-42). So with the discourses: thus Matt. xxiii. is found in Luke xi. 39-41; xx. 46, 47.

2 Chaps. xxiii. 56; xxiv. 53. Acts i. 12.

8 Chap. ii. 21, 22, 39, 41, 42 (this is an Ebionitish trait). See Philoso phumena, VII. vi. 34.

As in the parable of Dives and Lazarus. See also vi. 20-23, 24-28 (comparing the milder form in Matt. v. 3-12); xii. 13-15; xvi. (throughout); xxii. 35. Acts ii. 44, 55; v. 1-11.

5 The woman who anoints the feet of Jesus, the penitent thief on the cross, the pharisee and publican, the prodigal son.

• Thus the woman who anoints the feet becomes, in his account, a penitent sinner.

7 Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, the bloody sweat, meeting with the holy women, the penitent thief, etc. The words spoken to the "daughters of Jerusalem " (xvii. 28, 29) can hardly have been thought of till after the siege of A.D. 70.