ly
occur in a revealed gospel? At the crucifixion of Jesus the garments are
divided, and another passage is immediately recalled, this time in a Psalm
(xxii. 19), in which the poet says of himself that his enemies divided his
garments between them, but there is no mention of the Messiah. Such an
application of the words of the Psalm to Jesus is perfectly intelligible
in the contemporary feeling of the Jewish people. Once convinced that
Jesus was the Messiah or Christ, all the incidents of his life and death
must necessarily remind them of the prophecies which had been current for
years, and kept alive among them the hope of their deliverer. Such details
were probably employed to deepen the conviction in themselves and others
that Jesus was really the Messiah. This is all quite natural and
comprehensible; but if we look at it with the idea that the writer was
called and inspired by God, what must we say? First, in some cases there
are plain errors which would be impossible in an infallible witness.
Secondly, must we believe that such events as the birth of Christ in
Bethlehem and his betrayal by Judas took place merely in order that
certain prophecies might be fulfilled? This would reduce the life of
Christ to a mere phantasm and rob it of its entire historical
significance. Or shall we assume (as some critics have done) that all
these events were simply invented to prove the Messiahship of Jesus?

From all these difficulties we escape when we recognise in the Gospels a
record or deposit of what was developed in the first century in the
consciousness of the Christians, and concerning the Gospel of Matthew in
particular, Christians who were converts from Judaism. In this view
everything that borders on intentional deceit drops away of itself. The
facts remain as before, as the people had explained and arranged them.
According to Matthew and his successors, Christianity originated as is
described in the Gospel according to Matthew. Many facts may in the minds
and mouths of the people have assumed a more popular or legendary form;
that was not to be avoided. We know how much this popular influence, or
what I call the colloquial process, has infected the traditions of other
nations, and it is very helpful to know this, in order to do justice to
the Gospels. For how should this influence have been wanting just in the
first and second centuries in Palestine? Everything becomes clear when we
accept the historical view, supported