Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

286

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

287

of the accounts, in which Jesus is said to expel these demons, 

are self-contradictory; for example, it cannot be true that there 

were two Gadarene madmen, so fi erce as they are represented, 

who yet lived together. They would destroy one another. Mark 

and Luke, with greater probability, mention but one demoniac, 

in this place. These several accounts, which confl ict with one 

another, present numerous diffi culties. The demoniac knows 

Jesus is the Messiah; in Matthew, he calls out, “Hast thou 

come to torment me?” &c.; in Luke, he falls down and wor-

ships Jesus, and in Mark, he knows him at a distance, runs to 

him, and does homage. Here is a regular climax in the Chris-

tian tradition. But the greatest diffi culty consists in the demon 

entering the swine; for, as Olshausen has said, the Gadarene 

swine in the New Testament, like Balaam’s ass in the old, are 

a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. If we trust the ac-

count, the demon, at his own request, was transferred from 

the body of the man to the swine, and possessed the latter as 

he had done the former. Then the possessed animals rushed 

into the sea and were drowned. Here the conduct of the demon 

is inexplicable; he entreated not to be cast out into the deep, 

but casts himself into it. The character of Jesus is impaired by 

this story; for he must have known the result of suffering the 

demons to enter this large herd of two thousand swine, and 

the consequent loss their owners would sustain. He, therefore, 

is thus made “accessory before the fact,” and the naturalistic 

and supernaturalistic theories can give no satisfactory expla-

nation of the diffi culties. But considered as a mythical story, 

which grew naturally out of the common opinions of the peo-

ple, it is easily explained. It was commonly supposed that de-

mons must possess some body, and that they preferred im-

pure places; therefore the unclean bodies of the swine were the 

most suitable recipients of the demons, when driven from the 

man. Josephus mentions a conjuror, who, to convince specta-

tors that he really expelled demons, ordered them to overturn 

a vessel of water, set near the possessed men, as they came out 

of him, which they did to the satisfaction of all present. Jesus 

meant to give a similar proof, and to render the proof doubly 

strong, the test is not an inanimate body, placed near at hand, 

but a whole herd of swine, “a good way off,” which the demons 

force to rush upon certain destruction, contrary to the instinct 

of self-preservation natural to all animals. This, then, was a 

proof of the expulsion of the demons, and of their perfect sub-

jection to Jesus. Besides, to magnify the powers of Christ, he 

must not only cure simple, but diffi cult cases. Accordingly, 

that is represented as a desperate case; the man was fi erce and 

malignant; he dwelt naked in the tombs, and broke asunder all 

chains that could be forced upon him; and not only this, but 

he was possessed by a whole legion of devils, thus presenting 

a case of the greatest possible diffi culty. Matthew gives us the 

most simple form of the legend, thus constructed; Luke ren-

ders it more artifi cial, and Mark adds still farther embellish-

ments to it.

John mentions nothing concerning the demoniacs or their 

cure. Yet he must have shared the common Jewish notions 

on this point, and especially if they were the views of Jesus. It 

cannot be said, he omitted these cases, which form a great part 

of Christ’s miracles in the Synoptics, because it was unneces-

sary to repeat what they had recorded, for he more than once 

allows himself such repetitions; nor can it be true, that he ac-

commodated himself to the delicate ears of his Greek converts, 

to whom demoniacal possessions would be offensive. It seems, 

therefore, that the fourth Gospel was written not by John, but 

by some one who drew from the Christian tradition as received 

by the more refi ned Hellenists.

Another case of expelling a demon is evidently an imita-

tion and improvement of a similar case in the Old Testament. 

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

288

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

289

The disciples had failed in their attempt; but Jesus cures him 

at a word. So Elisha restores a dead child after Gehazi, his ser-

vant, had tried in vain, (2 Kings, iv. 29, seq.) Moses and Eli-

sha had cured the leprosy; the Messiah must do the same. He 

also must literally fulfi l fi gurative predictions of the prophets, 

and give sight to the blind. John enlarges upon the statements 

of the Synoptics, and makes him cure a man born blind. They 

relate that he cured paralytics, and increased bread, and re-

stored a dead person; but John enlarges these wonders, and 

according to him, Jesus cures a man who had been diseased 

for thirty-eight years, changes water into wine, and recals to 

life a man four days after his death, when the body was on the 

verge of dissolution.

Mr. Strauss supposes the accounts of Jesus involuntarily 

curing such as touched him, — as it were by a species of mag-

netic infl uence, — and even persons at a distance, whom he 

had never seen, are mythical stories, which have grown out 

of the popular reverence for Jesus. He places them on a level 

with similar stories in the Acts, of miraculous cures wrought 

by Peter’s shadow, and Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons, (Acts 

v. 15; xix. 11, 12.) “It is not diffi cult to see what causes have 

produced this branch of the gospel legends of miracles, in dis-

tinction from the others. The weak faith of the people, unable 

to grasp the Divine Spirit with the thoughts, strives to bring it 

down more and more to the level of material existence. There-

fore, according to the later opinion, the reliques and bones 

of a saint must work miracles after his death; Christ’s body 

must be actually present in the transubstantiated bread and 

wine, and for the same reason, according to the earlier opin-

ion, the sanatory power of the New-Testament-men adhered 

to their bodies, and even their garments. The less men un-

derstand and adhere to the words of Jesus, the more anxious 

will they be to seize upon his mantle, and the farther one is 

removed from sharing Paul’s unconfi ned spiritual power, the 

more confi dently will he carry home Paul’s gift of healing in 

his pocket-handkerchief.”

Mr. Strauss examines the several accounts where Jesus is 

said to raise the dead, and fi nds a climax in the three instances 

mentioned; fi rst, he restores a girl, on the bed where she had 

died; next, a young man in his coffi n, before burial; and fi -

nally, Lazarus, who had been dead four days, and was in the 

tomb. He enumerates all the diffi culties that beset a literal or 

mystical, natural or supernatural interpretation of the pas-

sages, and concludes that all the stories grew out of popular 

notions of the Messiah, or are copied from the similar stories 

of Elisha’s wonderful works (1 Kings xvii. 7; 2 Kings iv. 18,) or 

from the predictions of the prophets.

He collects and dwells upon the diffi culties of the alleged 

transfi guration of Jesus. What was the use of this scene ? Not 

to glorify Jesus, for his physical glorifi cation is unnecessary 

and childish. Why or how could Moses and Elijah appear to 

him, and for what purposes? Not to inform Jesus of his death; 

he had himself foretold it; not to strengthen him for future 

troubles, for it did not effect this object; and we do not know 

that he needed aid at that time; not to confi rm his disciples, 

for only three were present, and they were asleep, and were 

not permitted to relate the events until after the resurrection. 

Does God speak in an audible voice, and quote from the Old 

Testament? The theories of interpreters of the various schools 

are in part absurd, and all inadequate to remove the diffi cul-

ties. But the whole story has grown out of the Messianic ex-

pectations of the Jews, and an imitation of scenes in the Old 

Testament. The Jews expected the Messiah would appear with 

a face far more resplendent than that of Moses, — “a mere 

man;” his splendor would extend “from one hinge of the world 

to the other,” was the poetic expression. Moses had been glo-

rifi ed on a mountain; God had appeared to him in a cloud. The 

---