Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

282

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

283

We pass over the alleged instructions of the twelve, and 

the parables, where the only diffi culty lies in the discrepancy 

of the several narratives. Mr. Strauss thinks the controver-

sial discourses of Jesus are genuine, because they correspond 

so closely to the spirit and tone of rabbinical explanations of 

Scripture at that time. The discourses which John ascribes to 

Jesus present greater diffi culties. Let us take the conversa-

tion with Nicodemus. He is not mentioned by the other evan-

gelists. It is diffi cult to believe that, if John’s account is true, 

so distinguished a follower of Jesus as Nicodemus, would be 

omitted by Matthew, an immediate disciple of Christ, — to fol-

low the tradition. Still more diffi cult is it to believe, he would 

be forgotten by the oral tradition, which was the source of the 

Synoptical Gospels, which remember Joseph of Arimathea, 

and the two pious Marys. This diffi culty is so great, that we are 

tempted to ask if it is not more natural that John has followed 

a traditional legend, and that there never was such a man as 

Nicodemus? The Synoptics relate that the mysteries of the 

Messiah were understood by babes and sucklings, but were 

concealed from the wise and prudent. They mention Joseph of 

Arimathea as the only disciple from “the better sort” of people. 

John says the Pharisees attempted to “put Jesus down,” by 

saying, none of the rulers or Pharisees, but only the ignorant 

and infamous populace believed on him. Celsus subsequently 

made this objection, which was, no doubt, often brought in the 

early times of Christianity. So long as only the poor and un-

learned embraced this religion, they comforted themselves 

by Christ’s blessings pronounced upon the poor and simple; 

but when men of “character and standing” became Christians, 

they wished to fi nd others of their own class among the di-

rect disciples of Jesus. Not fi nding any such, they could say, 

“they were his secret followers, who came to him by night, for 

fear of the Jews,” (John xii. 42, seq., xix. 39.) Joseph of Ari-

mathea was one of this class; but more than one such was 

needed. Therefore this story was formed to remove the diffi -

culty. The Greek name of Nicodemus clearly indicates his con-

nexion with “higher classes” of society in Judea. He is men-

tioned only in John’s Gospel, because this is the most modern, 

and was composed in a community where the above objection 

was most keenly felt.

But this is only a conjecture; and even if it is well grounded, 

it should excite no prejudice against the conversation it-

self. This may, in all its essential features, be a genuine dis-

course Jesus held with one of the common people. It is incred-

ible that a Jewish teacher should not have understood the new 

birth; but it was for the interest of the story to show how far 

Jesus rose above other Jewish teachers. They were but fools 

compared to the Great Teacher. Nicodemus applies to earthly 

things what Jesus asserts of heavenly things. It is not prob-

able, that Jesus really spoke in the manner John relates, for 

this manner differs from that of the Synoptics. There he dwells 

on particular points, “with genuine pedagogical assiduity,” un-

til he has completely explained them, and then passes on, step 

by step, to other instructions, as a true teacher must do. But 

in the fourth Gospel, he speaks in a desultory and exaggerated 

manner, which can be explained only by supposing it was the 

narrator’s design to set the Teacher’s wisdom and the pupil’s 

ignorance in the most striking contrast.

John makes Jesus speak very differently from the Syn-

optics; for example, in Matthew, Jesus defends his violation 

of the Sabbath by three practical arguments, the example of 

David eating the holy bread, of the priests sacrifi sing on the 

Sabbath, and of a man saving the life of a beast on that day. 

But in John he uses the metaphysical argument, drawn from 

the uninterrupted activity of God; “My Father worketh hith-

erto.” Besides, there is the closest analogy between the lan-

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

284

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

285

guage of Jesus in the fourth Gospel and that of John’s fi rst 

Epistle, and those passages of the Gospel, in which either 

this evangelist himself, or John the Baptist speaks; and since 

this language differs from that of the other Gospels, we must 

conclude, the words belong to John, and not to Jesus. Per-

haps he invents suitable occasions, (as Plato has done,) and 

writes down his own refl ections in the form of his master’s 

discourses. His frequent repetition of the same thought, or 

form of expression, is quite striking. We must conclude that 

this evangelist treated the authentic tradition in the freest 

manner, and in the tone and spirit of the Alexandrians, or 

Hellenists.*

We pass over a long statement of discrepancies between 

the several Gospels, and other matters, of greater or less im-

portance, which Mr. Strauss has treated with his usual free-

dom, learning, and dialectical clearness of vision. His explana-

tion of the several stories of the sinful women, who anointed 

the feet of Jesus, is quite ingenious, to say nothing more. He 

supposes they all grew out of one simple story. We have, then, 

a group of fi ve histories, the centre of which is the narrative 

of a woman anointing Jesus, (Matt. xxvi. 6, seq.; Mark xiv. 3, 

seq. ) John’s account of the sinful woman, ( viii. 1, seq. ), and 

Luke’s of Mary and Martha, (x. 38, seq. ) occupy the extreme 

right and left; while Luke’s picture of his anointing by a sin-

ful woman, (vii. 36, seq.), and John’s, by Mary, (xii. 1, seq.), 

complete the piece. All may be but different delineations of the 

same event.

We come next to the miracles of Jesus. Miracles of various 

kinds were commonly expected of the Messiah, who was to

* In the third edition, p. 741, he adds; “I cannot maintain that John’s 

discourses contain anything, which cannot, decidedly, be explained from 

John’s character, or the composition of the gospel in the latter part of his 

life.”

surpass all the former prophets and deliverers. Now Moses 

had furnished food and water in a miraculous manner; Eli-

sha had opened the blind eyes, healed the sick, and raised the 

dead. The prophets had predicted nearly the same things in 

general, and some of them in special, of the Messiah, (Isaiah 

xxxv. 5; xlii. 7,) and according to the Gospels Jesus did more 

than realize these expectations. The fact, that men demanded 

“a sign” from him proves nothing against his miracles, for 

these demands seem to have been made after a display of mi-

raculous power. He censures the love of miracles; but this does 

not prove he would never perform one on a suitable occasion. 

But when he says no sign shall be given unto that generation, 

&c., Mr. Strauss concludes he refuses to perform any mira-

cles whatever before any of his contemporaries. This state-

ment is quite inconsistent with the miraculous narratives in 

the Gospels, but it agrees perfectly well with the preaching and 

letters of the Apostles; for there, (excepting a general state-

ment in Acts ii. 22, and x. 38,) the miracles are passed over in 

silence, and all rests on his resurrection; and this would not 

be so unexpected, nor would it make an epoch in the world, 

if Jesus had previously raised more than one from the dead, 

and wrought miracles of all sorts. Here, then, the question is, 

whether we are to explain away the Gospel accounts of mira-

cles, for the sake of the above refusal of Jesus to perform them; 

or doubt the genuineness and authenticity of this refusal; or in 

consideration of that refusal, and the silence of the apostoli-

cal writings to mistrust the numerous miracles of the Gospels. 

The author devotes above two hundred and fi fty pages to mir-

acles in general and particular. We shall notice only some of 

his most striking remarks.

It was a common opinion of the Jews, that certain diseases 

were caused by demons; Jesus himself seems to have shared 

this opinion. The belief, of course, is not well founded. Some 

---