If we do not succeed in rendering it such by the recital, it is surely because we have not succeeded in seeing it aright.

Suppose that, in restoring the Minerva of Phidias according to the texts, we produced a dry, jarring, artificial whole; what must we conclude?
Simply that the texts want an appreciative interpretation; that we must study them quietly until they dovetail and furnish a whole in which all the parts are happily blended.

Should we then be sure of having a perfect reproduction of the Greek statue?
No; but at least we should not have the caricature of it; we should have the general spirit of the work--one of the forms in which it could have existed.
This idea of a living organism we have not hesitated to take as our guide in the general arrangement of the narrative.

The perusal of the Gospels would suffice to prove that the compilers, although having a very true plan of the _Life of Jesus_ in their minds, have not been guided by very exact chronological data; Papias, besides, expressly teaches this.[1] The expressions: "At this time ...

after that ...
then ...