InhispresenteditionRenanadmitstheinsuperableforceoftheseobjections，andabandonshistheoryoftheapostolicoriginofthefourthgospel。Andasthishasnecessitatedtheomissionoralterationofallsuchpassagesasrestedupontheauthorityofthatgospel，thebookistoaconsiderableextentrewritten，andthechangesaresuchasgreatlytoincreaseitsvalueasahistoryofJesus。Nevertheless，theauthorhassolongbeeninthehabitofshapinghisconceptionsofthecareerofJesusbytheaidofthefourthgospel，thatithasbecomeverydifficultforhimtopassfreelytoanotherpointofview。Hestillclingstothehypothesisthatthereisanelementofhistorictraditioncontainedinthebook，drawnfrommemorialwritingswhichhadperhapsbeenhandeddownfromJohn，andwhichwereinaccessibletothesynoptists。Inaveryinterestingappendix，hecollectstheevidenceinfavourofthishypothesis，whichindeedisnotwithoutplausibility，sincethereiseveryreasonforsupposingthatthegospelwaswrittenatEphesus，whichacenturybeforehadbeenJohn’splaceofresidence。ButevengrantingmostofRenan’sassumptions，itmuststillfollowthattheauthorityofthisgospelisfarinferiortothatofthesynoptics，andcaninnocasebeveryconfidentlyappealedto。ThequestionisoneofthefirstimportancetothehistorianofearlyChristianity。IninquiringintothelifeofJesus，theveryfirstthingtodoistoestablishfirmlyinthemindthetruerelationsofthefourthgospeltothefirstthree。Untilthishasbeendone，nooneiscompetenttowriteonthesubject；anditisbecausehehasdonethissoimperfectly，thatRenan’sworkis，fromacriticalpointofview，soimperfectlysuccessful。
　　Theanonymousworkentitled“TheJesusofHistory，“whichwehaveplacedattheheadofthisarticle，isineveryrespectnoteworthyasthefirstsystematicattemptmadeinEnglandtofollowinthefootstepsofGermancriticisminwritingalifeofJesus。Weknowofnogoodreasonwhythebookshouldbepublishedanonymously；forasahistoricalessayitpossessesextraordinarymerit，anddoesgreatcreditnotonlytoitsauthor，buttoEnglishscholarshipandacumen。[19]Itisnot，indeed，abookcalculatedtocaptivatetheimaginationofthereadingpublic。
　　Thoughwritteninaclear，forcible，andoftenelegantstyle，itpossessesnosuchwonderfulrhetoricalcharmastheworkofRenan；anditwillprobablyneverfindhalfadozenreaderswherethe“ViedeJesus“hasfoundahundred。Butthesuccessofabookofthissortisnottobemeasuredbyitsrhetoricalexcellence，orbyitsadaptationtotheliterarytastesofanuncriticalanduninstructedpublic，butratherbytheamountofcriticalsagacitywhichitbringstobearupontheelucidationofthemanydifficultanddisputedpointsinthesubjectofwhichittreats。
　　Measuredbythisstandard，“TheJesusofHistory“mustrankveryhighindeed。TosaythatitthrowsmorelightuponthecareerofJesusthananyworkwhichhaseverbeforebeenwritteninEnglishwouldbeveryinadequatepraise，sincetheEnglishlanguagehasbeensingularlydeficientinthisbranchofhistoricalliterature。WeshallconveyamorejustideaofitsmeritsifwesaythatitwillbearcomparisonwithanythingwhichevenGermanyhasproduced，saveonlytheworksofStrauss，Baur，andZeller。
　　[19]“TheJesusofHistory“isnowknowntohavebeenwrittenbySirRichardHanson，ChiefJusticeofSouthAustralia。
　　Thefitnessofourauthorforthetaskwhichhehasundertakenisshownattheoutsetbyhischoiceofmaterials。Inbasinghisconclusionsalmostexclusivelyuponthestatementscontainedinthefirstgospel，heisupheldbyeverysoundprincipleofcriticism。Thetimesandplacesatwhichourthreesynopticgospelswerewrittenhavebeen，throughthelaboursoftheTubingencritics，determinedalmosttoacertainty。Ofthethree，“Mark“isunquestionablythelatest；withtheexceptionofabouttwentyverses，itisentirelymadeupfrom“Matthew“and“Luke，“
　　thediversePetrineandPaulinetendenciesofwhichitstrivestoneutralizeinconformitytotheconciliatorydispositionoftheChurchatRome，attheepochatwhichthisgospelwaswritten，aboutA。D。130。ThethirdgospelwasalsowrittenatRome，somefifteenyearsearlier。Inthepreface，itsauthordescribesitasacompilationfrompreviouslyexistingwrittenmaterials。Amongthesematerialswascertainlythefirstgospel，severalpassagesofwhichareadoptedwordforwordbytheauthorof“Luke。“Yetthenarrativevariesmateriallyfromthatofthefirstgospelinmanyessentialpoints。Thearrangementofeventsislessnatural，and，asinthe“ActsoftheApostles，“bythesameauthor，thereisapparentthroughoutthedesignofsuppressingtheolddiscordbetweenPaulandtheJudaizingdisciples，andofrepresentingChristianityasessentiallyPaulinefromtheoutset。HowfarPaulwascorrectinhisinterpretationoftheteachingsofJesus，itisdifficulttodecide。Itis，nodoubt，possiblethatthefirstgospelmayhavelenttothewordsofJesusanEbionitecolouringinsomeinstances，andthatnowandthenthethirdgospelmaypresentuswithatrueraccount。Tothissupremelyimportantpointweshallbyandbyreturn。Forthepresentitmustsufficetoobservethattheevidencesofanoverrulingdogmaticpurposearegenerallymuchmoreconspicuousinthethirdsynoptistthaninthefirst；andthattheveryloosemannerinwhichthiswriterhashandledhismaterialsinthe“Acts“isnotcalculatedtoinspireuswithconfidenceinthehistoricalaccuracyofhisgospel。Thewriterwho，inspiteofthedirecttestimonyofPaulhimselfcouldrepresenttheapostletotheGentilesasactingunderthedirectionofthedisciplesatJerusalem，andwhoputsPaulinesentimentsintothemouthofPeter，wouldcertainlyhavebeencapableofunwarrantablygivingaPaulineturntotheteachingsofJesushimself。Wearetherefore，asalastresort，broughtbacktothefirstgospel，whichwefindtopossess，asahistoricalnarrative，farstrongerclaimsuponourattentionthanthesecondandthird。InallprobabilityithadassumednearlyitspresentshapebeforeA。D。100，itsoriginisunmistakablyPalestinian；itbetrayscomparativelyfewindicationsofdogmaticpurpose；andtherearestrongreasonsforbelievingthatthespeechesofJesusrecordedinitareinsubstancetakenfromthegenuine“Logia“ofMatthewmentionedbyPapias，whichmusthavebeenwrittenasearlyasA。D。60-70，beforethedestructionofJerusalem。Indeed，weareinclinedtoagreewithourauthorthatthegospel，eveninitspresentshapesaveonlyafewinterpolatedpassages，mayhaveexistedasearlyasA。D。80，sinceitplacesthetimeofJesus’secondcomingimmediatelyafterthedestructionofJerusalem；whereasthethirdevangelist，whowroteforty-fiveyearsafterthatevent，iscarefultotellus，“TheendisNOTimmediately。“Moreover，itmusthavebeenwrittenwhilethePaulo-Petrinecontroversywasstillraging，asisshownbytheparableofthe“enemywhosowedthetares，“whichmanifestlyreferstoPaul，andalsobytheallusionsto“falseprophets“vii。15，tothosewhosay“Lord，Lord，“andwho“castoutdemonsinthenameoftheLord“vii。21-23，teachingmentobreakthecommandmentsv。17-20。Thereis，therefore，goodreasonforbelievingthatwehavehereanarrativewrittennotmuchmorethanfiftyyearsafterthedeathofJesus，basedpartlyuponthewrittenmemorialsofanapostle，andinthemaintrustworthy，savewhereitrelatesoccurrencesofamarvellousandlegendarycharacter。Suchisourauthor’sconclusion，andindescribingthecareeroftheJesusofhistory，hereliesalmostexclusivelyuponthestatementscontainedinthefirstgospel。
　　Letusnowafterthislongbutinadequateintroduction，giveabriefsketchofthelifeofJesus，asitistobefoundinourauthor。
　　ConcerningthetimeandplaceofthebirthofJesus，weknownexttonothing。Accordingtouniformtradition，baseduponastatementofthethirdgospel，hewasaboutthirtyyearsofageatthetimewhenhebeganteaching。Thesamegospelstates，withelaborateprecision，thatthepubliccareerofJohntheBaptistbeganinthefifteenthyearofTiberius，orA。D。28。InthewinterofA。D。35-36，PontiusPilatewasrecalledfromJudaea，sothatthecrucifixioncouldnothavetakenplacelaterthaninthespringof35。ThuswehaveaperiodofaboutsixyearsduringwhichtheministryofJesusmusthavebegunandended；andifthetraditionwithrespecttohisagebetrustworthy，weshallnotbefaroutofthewayinsupposinghimtohavebeenbornsomewherebetweenB。C。5andA。D。5。HeiseverywherealludedtointhegospelsasJesusofNazarethinGalilee，wherelivedalsohisfather，motherbrothersandsisters，andwhereverylikelyhewasborn。Hisparents’namesaresaidtohavebeenJosephandMary。
　　HisownnameisaHellenizedformofJoshua，anameverycommonamongtheJews。Accordingtothefirstgospelxiii。55，hehadfourbrothers，——JosephandSimon；James，whowasafterwardsoneoftheheadsofthechurchatJerusalem，andthemostformidableenemyofPaul；andJudasorJude，whoisperhapstheauthoroftheanti-Paulineepistlecommonlyascribedtohim。
　　OftheearlyyouthofJesus，andofthecircumstanceswhichguidedhisintellectualdevelopment，weknowabsolutelynothing，norhavewethedatarequisiteforforminganyplausiblehypothesis。HefirstappearsinhistoryaboutA。D。29or30，inconnectionwithaveryremarkablepersonwhomthethirdevangelistdescribesashiscousin，andwhoseems，fromhismodeoflife，tohavebeeninsomewayconnectedwithorinfluencedbytheHellenizingsectofEssenes。HereweobtainourfirstclewtoguideusinformingaconsecutivetheoryofthedevelopmentofJesus’opinions。ThesectofEssenestookitsriseinthetimeoftheMaccabees，aboutB。C。170。UponthefundamentaldoctrinesofJudaismithadengraftedmanyPythagoreannotions，andwasdoubtlessinthetimeofJesusinstrumentalinspreadingGreekideasamongthepeopleofGalilee，whereJudaismwasfarfrombeingsonarrowandrigidasatJerusalem。TheEssenesattachedbutlittleimportancetotheMessianicexpectationsofthePharisees，andmingledscarcelyatallinnationalpolitics。Theylivedforthemostpartastrictlyasceticlife，beingindeedthelegitimatepredecessorsoftheearlyChristianhermitsandmonks。
　　Butwhilepre-eminentforsanctityoflife，theyheapedridiculeupontheentiresacrificialserviceoftheTemple，despisedthePhariseesashypocrites，andinsisteduponcharitytowardallmeninsteadoftheoldJewishexclusiveness。