well nigh blasphemous; 1 also abridging and modifying some expressions. It is necessary to remember that Josephus owed his literary fortune to the Christians, who adopted his writings as essential documents of their sacred history. It is probable that in the second century they circulated an edition of them corrected according to Christian ideas. At all events, that which constitutes the immense interest of the books of Josephus in respect of our present subject is the vivid light they throw on the times. Thanks to this Jewish historian, Herod, Herodias, Antipas, Philip, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are personages whom, so to speak, we touch, and see living before us with a vivid personality.

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, especially the Jewish portion of the Sibylline Poems, the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Fourth Book of Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, together with the Book of Daniel (which is also itself a real Apocrypha), possess a primary importance in the history of the development of the messianic theories, and in the understanding of the conceptions of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God. The Book of Enoch, in particular, and the Assumption of Moses were much read in the circle of Jesus. Some expressions imputed to Jesus by the Synoptics are presented. in the epistle attributed to Saint Barnabas as belonging to Enoch, -ws Evòx

1 "If it is permitted to call him man."

2 Instead of ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν, it was probably χριστὸς οὗτος ἐλέγετο. Cf. Antiquities, XX. ix. 4. Origen, In Matt. x. 17; Contra Celsum, i. 47, ii. 13.

On this subject may be consulted Alexandre, Carmina Sibyllina (Paris, 1851-56); Reuss, les Sibylles chrétiennes, in the Revue de théologie, April and May, 1861; Colani, Jésus-Christ et les croyances messianiques, p. 16 et seq., with the works of Ewald, Dillmann, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld [and others, especially Charles's "Book of Enoch " (Oxford, 1893), and the volumes of Schürer. Sufficiently full accounts of these Apocryphal books, with ample illustration from their texts, will be found in the fifth and closing volume of Renan's "History of the People of Israel," (Boston, 1895)].

4 Ep. of Jude, ver. 6, 14; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Test. of the 12 Patriarchs, pass.; Jud: 9 (see Origen, De Principiis, III. ii. 1); Didymus Alex. (Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr. iv. 336). Cf. Matt. xxiv. 21 et seq., with Assumpt. Mosis, viii. x. (Hilgenfeld's ed. p. 105); and Rom. ii. 15, with the same, pp. 99, 100.

Aéye. It is very difficult to determine the date of the different sections of which the book attributed to that patriarch is composed. None of them are certainly anterior to the year 150 B. C.: some of them may even have been written by a Christian pen. The section containing the discourses called "Similitudes," and extending from chapter xxxvii. to chapter lxxi., is suspected of being a Christian work. But this has not been proved. I am disposed to think that the Gospels contain allusions to this portion of "Enoch," or at least to similar passages (see below, p. 366, note). Perhaps this part is merely proved to have been altered. Other Christian additions or revisions are recognisable here and there. 8

The collection of the Sibylline verses needs the like distinctions, but these are more easily established. The oldest part is the poem contained in Book III., ver. 97-817; it appears to belong to about the year 140 B. c. Respecting the date of the Fourth Book of Esdras, everybody now is nearly agreed in assigning this Apocalypse to the year 97 A. D. It has been altered by the Christians. The Apocalypse of Baruch has a great resemblance to that of Esdras; we find there, as in the Book of Enoch, several utterances imputed to Jesus. As to the Book of Daniel, the character of the two languages in which it is written; the use of Greek words; the clear, precise, dated announcements of events which go back as far as the times of Antiochus Epiphanes; the false descriptions of ancient Babylon; the general tone of the book, which has nothing suggestive of the writings of the Captivity, but on the contrary corresponds, by numerous analogies, with the beliefs, the manners, the turn of imagination, of the

5

1 Barn. iv. xvi. (Cod. Sinait., ed. Hilg., 8, 52); cf. Enoch, lxxxix. 56 et seq.; Matt. xxiv. 22; Mark xiii. 20. See other like coincidences below (p. 48, n.; 105, n.; 340, n.). Compare also the language of Jesus reported by Papias (Iren. Adv. Hær. V. xxxiii. 3, 4) with Enoch x. 19, and with Apoc. of Baruch, § 29 (Ceriani, Monum. Sacr. et prof. I. i. 80).

2 [See note, Hist. of Israel, v. 20.]

8 The passage lxvii. 4 et seq., in which the volcanic phenomena near Pozzuoli are described, does not prove the entire section to be later than A. D. 79, the date of the great eruption of Vesuvius. Allusions to like phenomena appear in Rev. ix., which belongs to A. D. 68.

4 Lately published in a Latin translation from the Syriac by Ceriani (Anecd. sacr. et prof., vol. i. fasc. 2, Milan, 1866).

5 See preceding notes.

epoch of the Seleucida; the apocalyptic form of the visions; the position of the book in the Hebrew canon, which is outside the series of the Prophets; the omission of Daniel in the panegyrics of chapter xlix. of Ecclesiasticus, in which his rank was (as it were) hinted at, with many another proof, a hundred. times deduced, do not permit a doubt that this book is a product of the general exaltation produced among the Jews by the persecution of Antiochus. It is not in the old prophetic literature that it must be classed; its place is at the head of apocalyptic literature, as the first model of a kind of composition after which were to come the various Sibylline poems, the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of John, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Fourth Book of Esdras.

Hitherto, in the history of the origins of Christianity, the Talmud has been too much neglected. I think, with Geiger, that the true notion of the circumstances among which Jesus appeared must be sought in this strange compilation, where so much knowledge is mixed with the most worthless pedantry. Since Christian and Jewish theology have followed mainly two parallel paths, the history of the one cannot be understood without the history of the other. Innumerable material details in the Gospels find, moreover, their commentary in the Talmud. The vast Latin collections of Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Buxtorf, and Otho contained already on this point a mass of information. I have taken upon myself to verify in the original all the citations that I have made, without an exception. The assistance which has been given in this part of my task by a learned Israelite, M. Neubauer, well versed in Talmudic literature, has enabled me to go further, and to elucidate certain parts of my subject by some new illustrations. The distinction between epochs is here very important, -the compilation of the Talmud extending from the year 200 to 500, or thereabout. We have given as much precision as was possible in the present condition of these studies. Dates so recent will excite fears among persons accustomed to attach value to a document only for the period in which it was written. But such scruples would here be out of place. Jewish teaching from the Asmonean epoch down to the second century was chiefly oral. The mental habit thence resulting must not be judged by the customs of an age in which writing is common. The Vedas, the Homeric poems, the ancient Arabic lays, were for centuries

preserved in memory, and yet these compositions present a very distinct and delicate form. In the Talmud, on the other hand, the form has no value. We may add that before the Mishna of Juda the saint, which wiped out the recollection of all the others, there were several essays at compilation, beginning farther back, perhaps, than is commonly supposed. The style of the Talmud is that of lecture-notes; the editors probably did no more than to arrange under certain titles the enormous medley of writings which, for generations, had accumulated in the different schools. It remains for us to speak of the documents which, claiming to be biographies of the founder of Christianity, must naturally take the place of honour in a Life of Jesus. A complete treatise on the compilation of the Gospels would be a work of itself. Thanks to the excellent work which for the last thirty years has been devoted to this question, a problem which might once have been held to be beyond our reach has found a solution quite sufficient for the requirements of history, though there is room still left for much uncertainty. We shall have occasion later on to revert to this, seeing that the composition of the Gospels was one of the most important facts for the future of Christianity that took place during the second half of the first century. We shall touch here only a single aspect of the subject, but this one is indispensable to the solidity of our narrative. Setting aside all that belongs to a picture of the apostolic times, we will inquire only to what extent data furnished by the Gospels can be employed in a history constructed on rational principles.1

That the Gospels are in part legendary is quite evident, inasmuch as they are full of miracles and of the supernatural; but there are legends and legends. Nobody disputes the principal features in the life of Francis of Assisi, although we meet the supernatural in it at every step. Contrariwise, no one gives credence to the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana," for the reason that it was written long after his own time, and avowedly as a pure romance. When, by whom, and under what conditions were the Gospels compiled? This is the chief question upon which the opinion we are to form of their credibility depends.

1 Those desiring ampler treatment may consult, besides the works before noted, the writings of Reuss, Scherer, Schwalb, Scholten (tr. by Réville), in the Revue de théologie, and of Réville in the Revue des Deux Mondes, May and June, 1866.

We know that each of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a person well-known either in apostolic history or in the gospel history itself. If these titles are correct, it is clear that the Gospels, without ceasing to be in part legendary, acquire a high value, since they take us back to the half-century which followed the death of Jesus, and even in two cases to eyewitnesses of his acts.

8

As for Luke, doubt is hardly possible. The Gospel of Luke is a studied composition, founded upon earlier documents.1 It is the work of a man who selects, prunes, and combines. The author of this Gospel is undoubtedly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles. Now, the author of the Acts appears to be a companion of Paul, an appellation which exactly fits Luke. I am aware that more than one objection can be raised against this opinion; but one thing is beyond question: that the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is a man belonging to the second apostolic generation, and this is sufficient for our purpose. The date of that Gospel may, however, be determined with quite enough precision by considerations drawn from the book itself. The twenty-first chapter of Luke, which is inseparable from the rest of the work, was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, but not very long after.5 We are here, then, on solid ground; for we have to do with a work all written by the same hand, and its unity is perfect.

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not show nearly the same stamp of individuality. They are impersonal compositions, in which the author wholly disappears. A proper name written at the head of such works does not count for much. We cannot, moreover, reason here as in the case of Luke. The date which belongs to a particular chapter (to Matthew xiv. or Mark xiii., 1 Luke i. 1-4. 2 Acts i. 4.

* From xvi. 10, forward, the writer speaks of himself as an eye-witness. 4 Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. As the name Luke (abridged from Lucanus) is quite rare, we have not to apprehend here one of those homonyms which occasion so much perplexity in questions of N. T. criticism.

These passages

5 See ver. 9, 20, 24, 28, 29–32, and compare xxii. 36. are the more striking, since the writer feels the peril in predictions of so near date, and guards against it, either by softening such passages as Mark xiii. 14-24, 29; Matt. xxiv. 15-29, 33; or else by question and answer, as in Luke xvii. 20, 21.