which the text reappears sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other, and of which the second Gospel, such as we read it to-day, is but a slightly modified reproduction.  In other words, the scheme of the Life of Jesus, in the synoptics, rests upon two original documents—­first, the discourses of Jesus collected by Matthew; second, the collection of anecdotes and personal reminiscences which Mark wrote from the recollections of Peter.  We may say that we have these two documents still, mixed with accounts from another source, in the two first Gospels, which bear, not without reason, the name of the “Gospel according to Matthew” and of the “Gospel according to Mark.”

What is indubitable, in any case, is, that very early the discourses of Jesus were written in the Aramean language, and very early also his remarkable actions were recorded.  These were not texts defined and fixed dogmatically.  Besides the Gospels which have come to us, there were a number of others professing to represent the tradition of eye-witnesses.[1] Little importance was attached to these writings, and the preservers, such as Papias, greatly preferred oral tradition.[2] As men still believed that the world was nearly at an end, they cared little to compose books for the future; it was sufficient merely to preserve in their hearts a lively image of him whom they hoped soon to see again in the clouds.  Hence the little authority which the Gospel texts enjoyed during one hundred and fifty years.  There was no scruple in inserting additions, in variously combining them, and in completing some by others.  The poor man who has but one book wishes that it may contain all that is clear to his heart.  These little books were lent, each one transcribed in the margin of his copy the words, and the parables he found elsewhere, which touched him.[3] The most beautiful thing in the world has thus proceeded from an obscure and purely popular elaboration.  No compilation was of absolute value.  Justin, who often appeals to that which he calls “The Memoirs of the Apostles,"[4] had under his notice Gospel documents in a state very different from that in which we possess them.  At all events, he never cares to quote them textually.  The Gospel quotations in the pseudo-Clementinian writings, of Ebionite origin, present the same character.  The spirit was everything; the letter was nothing.  It was when tradition became weakened, in the second half of the second century, that the texts bearing the names of the apostles took a decisive authority and obtained the force of law.

[Footnote 1:  Luke i. 1, 2; Origen, Hom. in Luc. 1 init.; St. Jerome, Comment. in Matt., prol.]

[Footnote 2:  Papias, in Eusebius, H.E., iii. 39.  Comp.  Irenaeus, Adv.  Haer., III. ii. and iii.]

[Footnote 3:  It is thus that the beautiful narrative in John viii. 1-11 has always floated, without finding a fixed place in the framework of the received Gospels.]