knowledge which he has of the part played by Annas in aiding Caiaphas;
the appearance of the angel in the agony (comp. John xii. 28, 29).]

These explanations will suffice, I think, to show, in the course of my
narrative, the motives which have determined me to give the preference
to this or that of the four guides whom we have for the _Life of
Jesus_. On the whole, I admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels.
All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are,
generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed; but their
historic value is very diverse. Matthew evidently merits an unlimited
confidence as to the discourses; they are the _Logia_, the identical
notes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the teachings of
Jesus. A kind of splendor at once mild and terrible--a divine
strength, if we may so speak, emphasizes these words, detaches them
from the context, and renders them easily distinguishable. The person
who imposes upon himself the task of making a continuous narrative
from the gospel history, possesses, in this respect, an excellent
touchstone. The real words of Jesus disclose themselves; as soon as we
touch them in this chaos of traditions of varied authenticity, we feel
them vibrate; they betray themselves spontaneously, and shine out of
the narrative with unequaled brilliancy.

The narrative portions grouped in the first Gospel around this
primitive nucleus have not the same authority. There are many not well
defined legends which have proceeded from the zeal of the second
Christian generation.[1] The Gospel of Mark is much firmer, more
precise, containing fewer subsequent additions. He is the one of the
three synoptics who has remained the most primitive, the most
original, the one to whom the fewest after-elements have been added.
In Mark, the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek in