regarded
as Messianic had had their accomplishment. But this procedure, of
which we must not deny the importance, would not suffice to explain
everything. No Jewish work of the time gives a series of prophecies
exactly declaring what the Messiah should accomplish. Many Messianic
allusions quoted by the evangelists are so subtle, so indirect, that
one cannot believe they all responded to a generally admitted
doctrine. Sometimes they reasoned thus: "The Messiah ought to do such
a thing; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore Jesus has done such a
thing." At other times, by an inverse process, it was said: "Such a
thing has happened to Jesus; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore such
a thing was to happen to the Messiah."[1] Too simple explanations are
always false when analyzing those profound creations of popular
sentiment which baffle all systems by their fullness and infinite
variety. It is scarcely necessary to say that, with such documents, in
order to present only what is indisputable, we must limit ourselves to
general features. In almost all ancient histories, even in those which
are much less legendary than these, details open up innumerable
doubts. When we have two accounts of the same fact, it is extremely
rare that the two accounts agree. Is not this a reason for
anticipating many difficulties when we have but one? We may say that
amongst the anecdotes, the discourses, the celebrated sayings which
have been given us by the historians, there is not one strictly
authentic. Were there stenographers to fix these fleeting words? Was
there an analyst always present to note the gestures, the manners, the
sentiments of the actors? Let any one endeavor to get at the truth as
to the way in which such or such contemporary fact has happened; he
will not succeed. Two accounts of the same event given by different
eye-witnesses differ essentially. Must we, therefore, reject all the
coloring of the narratives, and limit ourselves to the bare facts
only? That would be to suppress history. Certainly, I think that if we
except certain short and almost mnemonic axioms, none of the
discourses reported by Matthew are textual; even our stenographic
reports are scarcely so. I freely admit that the admirable account of
the Passion contains many trifling inaccuracies. Would it, however, be
writing the history of Jesus to omit those sermons which give to us in
such a vivid manner the character of his discourses, and to limit
ourselves to sa