belief in their reality, in their actual occurrence at the time of Christ.
In many cases this belief is widely spread, as, for example, in the story
of the good Samaritan, Now it is quite possible that some such incident as
Jesus related had occurred in his time, or shortly before it; but it is
just as likely to have been a parable invented for a specific purpose. And
why should not this be true of other things, which the Gospels ascribe to
Jesus himself?

Is it necessary to believe, that Jesus saw the Pharisees casting their
gifts into the treasury with his own eyes (Luke xxi. 1), and the poor
widow who threw in two mites, or is it possible to consider this, too, as
a parable, without insisting that Jesus really sat opposite the sacred
chest, and counted the alms, and knew that the widow had put in two mites,
and had really nothing left? Of many things, as of the conversation
between Jesus and Nicodemus, or between Jesus and the woman of Samaria, no
one could have had any knowledge except those who took part in it. We must
therefore assume that Jesus communicated these conversations to his
disciples, and that these have reported to us the _ipsissima verba_. In
this manner we are constantly involving ourselves in fresh difficulties of
our own making, which we may indeed leave out of consideration, but which
would never exist at all if we would only consider the circumstances under
which the Gospels arose. I have previously expounded this view of the
popular origin of the evangelic narratives in my Gifford lectures before
an audience, certainly very orthodox; and although a small number of
theologians were much incensed against me,--it was their duty,--the
majority, even of the clergy, were decidedly with me. The things
themselves and their lessons remain undiminished in value; we merely
acknowledge a fact, quite natural from an historical standpoint, viz. that
the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus have not come to us direct
from Christ, nor from the apostles, but from men who, as they themselves
tell us, received the report from others by tradition. Their narratives,
consequently, are not perhaps fictitious, or prepared with a certain
object; but they do show traces of the influence that was unavoidable in
oral transmission, especially at a time of great spiritual excitement.
This is a problem which in itself has nothing whatever to do with
religion. We have the Gospels as they are. It remains with the historia