Sometimes they reasoned thus: "The Messiah ought to do such a thing; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore Jesus has done such a thing." At other times, by an inverse process, it was said: "Such a thing has happened to Jesus; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore such a thing was to happen to the Messiah."[1] Too simple explanations are always false when analyzing those profound creations of popular sentiment which baffle all systems by their fullness and infinite variety.

It is scarcely necessary to say that, with such documents, in order to present only what is indisputable, we must limit ourselves to general features.

In almost all ancient histories, even in those which are much less legendary than these, details open up innumerable doubts.

When we have two accounts of the same fact, it is extremely rare that the two accounts agree.

Is not this a reason for anticipating many difficulties when we have but one?
We may say that amongst the anecdotes, the discourses, the celebrated sayings which have been given us by the historians, there is not one strictly authentic.