The Life of Jesus | Page 5

given me for this part of my task by a learned Israelite, M. Neubauer,
well versed in Talmudic literature, has enabled me to go further, and to
clear up the most intricate parts of my subject by new researches. The
distinction of epochs is here most important, the compilation of the
Talmud extending from the year 200 to about the year 500. We have
brought to it as much discernment as is possible in the actual state of
these studies. Dates so recent will excite some fears among persons
habituated to accord value to a document only for the period in which it
was written. But such scruples would here be out of place. The teaching
of the Jews from the Asmonean epoch down to the second century was
principally oral. We must not judge of this state of intelligence by the
habits of an age of much writing. The Vedas, and the ancient Arabian
poems, have been preserved for ages from memory, and yet these

compositions present a very distinct and delicate form. In the Talmud,
on the contrary, the form has no value. Let us add that before the
Mishnah of Judas the Saint, which has caused all others to be forgotten,
there were attempts at compilation, the commencement of which is
probably much earlier than is commonly supposed. The style of the
Talmud is that of loose notes; the collectors did no more probably than
classify under certain titles the enormous mass of writings which had
been accumulating in the different schools for generations.
It remains for us to speak of the documents which, presenting
themselves as biographies of the Founder of Christianity, must
naturally hold the first place in a Life of Jesus. A complete treatise upon
the compilation of the Gospels would be a work of itself. Thanks to the
excellent researches of which this question has been the object during
thirty years, a problem which was formerly judged insurmountable has
obtained a solution which, though it leaves room for many uncertainties,
fully suffices for the necessities of history. We shall have occasion to
return to this in our Second Book, the composition of the Gospels
having been one of the most important facts for the future of
Christianity in the second half of the first century. We will touch here
only a single aspect of the subject, that which is indispensable to the
completeness of our narrative. Leaving aside all which belongs to the
portraiture of the apostolic times, we will inquire only in what degree
the data furnished by the Gospels may be employed in a history formed
according to rational principles.[1]
[Footnote 1: Persons who wish to read more ample explanations, may
consult, in addition to the work of M. Réville, previously cited, the
writings of Reuss and Scherer in the _Revue de Théologie_, vol. x., xi.,
xv.; new series, ii., iii., iv.; and that of Nicolas in the Revue
Germanique, Sept. and Dec., 1862; April and June, 1863.]
That the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since they are full of
miracles and of the supernatural; but legends have not all the same
value. No one doubts the principal features of the life of Francis
d'Assisi, although we meet the supernatural at every step. No one, on
the other hand, accords credit to the Life of Apollonius of Tyana,

because it was written long after the time of the hero, and purely as a
romance. At what time, by what hands, under what circumstances, have
the Gospels been compiled? This is the primary question upon which
depends the opinion to be formed of their credibility.
Each of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a personage,
known either in the apostolic history, or in the Gospel history itself.
These four personages are not strictly given us as the authors. The
formulæ "according to Matthew," "according to Mark," "according to
Luke," "according to John," do not imply that, in the most ancient
opinion, these recitals were written from beginning to end by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John,[1] they merely signify that these were the
traditions proceeding from each of these apostles, and claiming their
authority. It is clear that, if these titles are exact, the Gospels, without
ceasing to be in part legendary, are of great value, since they enable us
to go back to the half century which followed the death of Jesus, and in
two instances, even to the eye-witnesses of his actions.
[Footnote 1: In the same manner we say, "The Gospel according to the
Hebrews," "The Gospel according to the Egyptians."]
Firstly, as to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of Luke is a
regular composition, founded on anterior documents.[1] It is the work
of a man who selects, prunes, and combines. The author of