enan expressly calls attention to the difficulty of distinguishing
the authentic "logia" from later additions of the same kind ("Les
Evangiles," p. 201). The fact is, there is no contradiction here to
that opinion about the first Gospel which is expressed in "Les
Evangiles" (p. 175).

The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence
of that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He
completes it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of
those long discourses which gave their chief value to the
Hebrew Gospels; then by adding traditions of a more modern
formation, results of successive developments of the legend,
and to which the Christian consciousness already attached
infinite value.

M. Renan goes on to suggest that besides "Mark," "pseudo-Matthew"
used an Aramaic version of the Gospel, originally set forth in that
dialect. Finally, as to the second Gospel ("Nineteenth Century," p.
365):--

He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond
doubt, from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict
with the supposition that this eye-witness ... was the
Apostle Peter himself, as Papias has it.

Let us consider this citation by the light of "Les Evangiles":--

This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was,
in a sense, the work of Peter; it represents the way in
which Peter was accustomed to relate the life of Jesus (p.
116).

M. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the Gospel of
Mark has a great superiority (p. 116); but Mark has a motive for
omitting the discourses, and he attaches a "puerile importance" to
miracles (p. 117). The Gospel of Mark is less a legend, than a
biography written with credulity (p. 118). It would be rash to say
that Mark has not been interpolated and retouched (p. 120).

If any one thinks that I have not been warranted in drawing a sharp
distinction between "scientific theologians" and "counsels for
creeds"; or that my warning against the too ready acceptance of
certain declarations as to the state of biblical criticism was
needless; or that my anxiety as to the sense of the word "practical"
was superfluous; let him compare the statement that M. Renan has made
a "practical surrender of the adverse case" with the facts just set
forth. For what is the adverse case? The question, as Dr. Wace puts
it, is, "It may be asked how far can we rely on the acco