472 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the text in which they are imbedded, in Matthew. " Notes " are 

 somewhat suggestive of a short-hand writer, but the suggestion is 

 unintentional, for M. Renan assumes that these "notes" were 

 taken, not at the time of the delivery of the " logia," but sub- 

 sequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of them was living 

 and definite ; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan leaves open 

 the question of the general historical value of the first Gospel, 

 while it is obvious that the accuracy of " notes," taken, not at the 

 time of delivery, but from memory, is a matter about which more 

 than one opinion may be fairly held. Moreover, Renan 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 Evan- 

 giles " (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 succes- 

 sive 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 ( " Nine- 

 teenth 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 also by the light of " Les Evan- 

 giles " : 



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M. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the 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 re- 

 touched (p. 120). 



If any one thinks that I have not been warranted in drawing a 

 sharp distinction between "scientific theologians" and "counsel 

 for creeds " ; or that my warning against the too ready acceptance 



* " Popular Science Monthly," May, 1889, p. 79. 



