Any attempt to censure the character of Jesus will meet with the ridicule it deserves unless substantiated by documentary evidence. The mere improbability of events contrary to natural laws does not destroy the ethical value of the teachings of the Nazarene. Anything might have happened in the eerie days of old; the critic must do more than deny the historicity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible. To be convincing he must derive from the scriptures in which Christians believe whatever proof can be deduced to unveil the superstition of a redeeming Savior. _Documentary Evidence_ The documents most generally accepted by Christians are those collected in the King James Version of the Bible. The Apocrypha and other early manuscripts are unreliable. None of the thirty or more writers who described events around Jerusalem in Jesus' time gives any account of his teachings. The only life of Jesus is found in the four gospels; the numerous biographers of Christ have had no other reliable source of information. It is deceptive for the publishers of revised editions of the Bible to claim that "original manuscripts" have been consulted. Not one of the original manuscripts is in existence, the earliest extant dating from the fourth century A.D., while the most ancient portion of the New Testament in any museum was transcribed in the sixth century. Accepting, therefore, the King James Version of the New Testament as the most reliable source of information, the question arises as to what portion of the chapters therein may be considered authentic. Scholars have rejected the entire gospel of John as less reliable than the synoptic gospels; and the sixteenth chapter of Mark as an addition after the original papyrus had broken off. Modernists, being confronted, in spite of these deletions, with inconsistencies in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, have assumed the further privilege of rejecting any verses which appear at variance with their beliefs. Liberals of this class contend that the supernatural side of Jesus may be disregarded and yet that Jesus will remain Our Lord. They reject certain evangelistic passages that conflict with modern thought, but accept other statements by the same authors as authoritative. As the Christian churches have not accepted any abbreviation of the Bible as a substitute for the King James Version, it seems proper for the critic to have recourse to that translation as the most authentic description of the life and teachings of Jesus. He is justified, moreover, in considering every word in the supposedly inspired gospels as equally reliable. His only concern should be to interpret each verse as nearly as possible as the original writers intended their words to be understood, allowing for Eastern hyperbole and the custom of the times. _Retain the Good_