tradition through the generation immediately succeeding his
death, have come down to us, probably with little alteration, in
the pages of the three earlier evangelists. These are priceless
data, since, as we shall see, they are almost the only materials
at our command for forming even a partial conception of the
character of Jesus' work. Nevertheless, even here the cautious
inquirer has only too often to pause in face of the difficulty of
distinguishing the authentic utterances of the great teacher from
the later interpolations suggested by the dogmatic necessities of
the narrators. Bitterly must the historian regret that Jesus had
no philosophic disciple, like Xenophon, to record his
Memorabilia. Of the various writings included in the New
Testament, the Apocalypse alone (and possibly the Epistle of
Jude) is from the pen of a personal acquaintance of Jesus; and
besides this, the four epistles of Paul, to the Galatians,
Corinthians, and Romans, make up the sum of the writings from
which we may expect contemporary testimony. Yet from these we
obtain absolutely nothing of that for which we are seeking. The
brief writings of Paul are occupied exclusively with the internal
significance of Jesus' work. The epistle of Jude--if it be really
written by Jesus' brother of that name, which is doubtful--is
solely a polemic directed against the innovations of Paul. And
the Apocalypse, the work of the fiery and imaginative disciple
John, is confined to a prophetic description of the Messiah's
anticipated return, and tells us nothing concerning the deeds of
that Messiah while on the earth.

Here we touch upon our third consideration,--the consideration
which best enables us to see why the historic notices of Jesus
are so meagre. Rightly considered, the statement with which we