The Gospels, says M. Loisy, are for Christianity what the Pentateuch is for Judaism.  Like the Pentateuch, they are a patchwork and a compound of history and legend.  The differences between them amount in many cases to unmistakable contradictions.  In Mark the life of Jesus follows a progressive development.  The first to infer His Messiahship is Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi; and Jesus Himself first declares it openly in His trial before the Sanhedrin.  In Matthew and Luke, on the contrary, Jesus is presented to the public as the Son of God from the beginning of His ministry; He comes forward at once as the supreme Lawgiver, the Judge, the anointed of God.  The Fourth Gospel goes much further still.  His heavenly origin, His priority to the world, His co-operation in the work of creation and salvation, are ideas which are foreign to the other Gospels, but which the author of the Fourth Gospel has set forth in his prologue, and, in part, put into the mouth of John the Baptist.[59] The difference between the Christ of the Synoptic Gospels and the Christ of John may be summed up by saying that ’the Christ of the Synoptics is historical, but is not God; the Johannine Christ is divine, but not historical.’[60] But even Mark (according to M. Loisy) probably only incorporates the document of an eye-witness; his Gospel betrays Pauline influence.[61] The Gospel which bears his name is later than the destruction of Jerusalem, and was issued, probably about A.D. 75, by an unknown Christian, not a native of Palestine, who wished to write a book of evangelical instruction in conformity with the ideas of the Hellenic-Christian community to which he belonged.[62] The tradition connecting it with Peter may indicate that it was composed at Rome, but has no other historical value.[63]

The Gospel of Matthew was probably written about the beginning of the second century by a non-Palestinian Jew residing in Asia Minor or Syria.  He is before all things a Catholic ecclesiastic, and may well have been one of the presbyters or bishops of the churches in which the institution of a monarchical episcopate took root.[64] The narratives peculiar to Matthew have the character rather of legendary developments than of genuine reminiscences.  The historical value of these additions is nil.  As a witness to fact, Matthew ranks below Mark, and even below Luke.[65] In particular, the chapters about the birth of Christ seem not to have the slightest historical foundation.  The fictitious character of the genealogy is proved by the fact that Jesus seems not to have known of His descent [from David].  The story of the virgin birth turns on a text from Isaiah.  Of this part of the Gospel, Loisy says, ’rien n’est plus arbitraire comme exegese, ni plus faible comme narration fictive.’[66] Luke has taken more pains to compose a literary treatise than Mark or Matthew.  The authorities which he follows seem to be—­the source of our Mark, the so-called Matthew logia, and some other