Would it, however, be writing the history of Jesus to omit those sermons which give to us in such a vivid manner the character of his discourses, and to limit ourselves to saying, with Josephus and Tacitus, "that he was put to death by the order of Pilate at the instigation of the priests"?
That would be, in my opinion, a kind of inexactitude worse than that to which we are exposed in admitting the details supplied by the texts.
These details are not true to the letter, but they are true with a superior truth, they are more true than the naked truth, in the sense that they are truth rendered expressive and articulate--truth idealized.
[Footnote 1: See, for example, John xix.

23-24.] I beg those who think that I have placed an exaggerated confidence in narratives in great part legendary, to take note of the observation I have just made.

To what would the life of Alexander be reduced if it were confined to that which is materially certain?
Even partly erroneous traditions contain a portion of truth which history cannot neglect.

No one has blamed M.Sprenger for having, in writing the life of Mahomet, made much of the _hadith_ or oral traditions concerning the prophet, and for often having attributed to his hero words which are only known through this source.

Yet the traditions respecting Mahomet are not superior in historical value to the discourses and narratives which compose the Gospels.