Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

294

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

295

hereafter to be completed. His ascension is the symbol of the 

eternal excellence of religion; Christ on the cross is the image 

of mankind purifi ed by self-sacrifi ce. We must all be crucifi ed 

with him, to ascend with him to a new life. The idea of devo-

tion is the ground-tone in the history of Jesus; for every act of 

his life was consecrated to the thought of his Heavenly Father.

We can only glance at the contents of this concluding trea-

tise. It gives a fundamental criticism of the Christology of 

the Orthodox, the Rationalists, of the Eclectics, of Schleier-

macher, Kant, and De Wette, and the speculative theology of 

Hegel and his followers. He points out the merits and defects 

of these various systems, and concludes his work with an at-

tempt to reconcile, in some measure, his own views of Christ 

with the wants of religious souls, and the opinions of others. 

He thus concludes; “Setting aside, therefore, the notions of the 

sinlessness and absolute perfection of Jesus, as notions that 

could not be realized perfectly by a human being in the fl esh, 

we understand Christ as that person, in whose self-conscious-

ness the unity of the Divine and Human fi rst came forth, and 

with an energy, that, in the whole course of his life and char-

acter, diminished to the very lowest possible degree* all lim-

itations of this unity. In this respect he stands alone and un-

equalled in the world’s history. And yet, we do not affi rm, that 

the religious consciousness, which he fi rst attained and pro-

claimed, can, in its separate parts, dispense with purifi cation 

and farther improvement, through the progressive develop-

ment of the human mind.Ӡ

Having thus given a patient, and, we hope, faithful account 

of the principles, method, and most striking results of this

*Bis zum verschwinden Minimum zurückdrängte.

†Vol. II. p. 771–779, 3d edit.

celebrated work, it may not be amiss to point out some of the 

false principles, which have conducted the author to his ex-

treme conclusions, though we think their extravagance an-

swers itself. We see no reason to doubt that he is a religious 

man  in his own way; nay, he calls himself a Christian, and 

so far as his life abides the test, we know not why the name 

should be withheld. His religion and life may have the Chris-

tian savor, though his theology be what it is. We know there 

are fascinations which a paradox presents to daring souls, and 

we are told there is a charm, to a revolutionary spirit, in at-

tempting to pull down the work, which has sheltered the piety, 

defended the weakness, and relieved the wants of mankind for 

a score of centuries, when it is supposed to rest on a false foun-

dation. Yet we doubt not that Mr. Strauss is honest in his con-

victions, and has throughout aimed to be faithful and true. We 

cannot, therefore, as some have done, call him “the Iscariot of 

the  nineteenth century;” we cannot declare him “inspired by 

the devil,” nor accuse him of the “sin against the Holy Ghost;” 

nor say that he has “ the heart of leviathan, hard as a piece of 

the nether mill-stone.” We judge no man’s heart but our own. 

However, the erroneous principles which lead to his mistaken 

conclusions may be briefl y glanced at.

1. He sets out, as he says, without any “presuppositions.” 

Now this is not possible, if it were desirable, and not desirable, 

if it were possible. But he has set out with presuppositions, 

namely, that the Idea precedes the man, who is supposed to 

realize that idea; that many men, having a certain doctrine, 

gradually and in a natural manner, refer this doctrine to some 

historical person, and thus make a mythical web of history. He 

presupposes that a miracle is utterly impossible. Again he pre-

supposes, — and this is an important feature of his system, — 

that the Ideal of Holiness and Love, for example, like the Ideal 

of beauty, eloquence, philosophy, or music, cannot be concen-

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

296

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

297

trated in an individual. In a word, there can be no incarnation 

of God; not even of what, in a human manner, we call his Love, 

or Holiness. We could enumerate many other presuppositions, 

but forbear.* He explains his meaning in the controversial re-

plies to his opponents, but does not satisfy us.

2. He passes quite lightly to the conclusion, that the four 

Gospels are neither genuine nor authentic. Perhaps it is not 

fair to enumerate this among his presuppositions, though we 

know not where else to place it; certainly not in the catalogue 

of proofs, for he adduces no new arguments against them; de-

cides entirely from internal arguments, that they are not true, 

and were not written by eye-witnesses, and pays no regard to 

the evidence of Christian, Heretical, and even Heathen Antiq-

uity on some points, in their favor. The  genuineness of Paul’s 

most important epistles has never been contested, and the fact 

of the Christian Church stands out before the sun; but the con-

victions of the one and the faith of the other remain perfectly 

inexplicable, by his theory.†

3. The book is not written in a religious spirit. It will be  

said a critical works needs not be written in a religious spirit, 

and certainly those works, — and we could name many such, 

— which aim at two marks, edifi cation and criticism, usually 

fail of both. They are neither wind nor water; are too high for 

this world, and too low for the next; too critical to edify; too 

hortatory to instruct. That anicular criticism, so common on 

this side of the waters, deservesonly contempt. But a philo-

* See Ullmann, Historisch oder der Mythisch. Beiträge zur Beantwor-

tung der gegenwärtigen Lebensfrage der Theologic; Hamburg: 

1838, p. 62, seq. De Wette l. c. Tholuck, Glaubwürdigkeit der evange-

lischen Geschichte zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von  Strauss. 

1838, p. 26, seq.

† See the necessary “presuppositions,” laid down by De Wette, 

 

Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. Vol. I. Th. 3, concluding 

treatise on the historical criticism of the Evangelical History; Leip., 1837. 

p. 214, seq.

sophical work should be criticised philosophically; a poetical 

work, in the spirit of a poet, and a religious history in a reli-

gious spirit. The criticism of Schleiermacher and De Wette 

is often as bold, unsparing, and remorseless, and sometimes 

quite as destructive, as that of Strauss; but they always leave 

an impression of their profound piety. We will not question 

the religious character of Mr. Strauss; a Christian like Dr. Ull-

man, his own countryman, does not doubt it; others of his 

countrymen, in letters and conversation, inform us that his re-

ligious character is above reproach, and puts some of his op-

ponents to shame.

4. His mythical hypothesis has carried him away. Fondness 

for theory is “the old Adam of theology,” and Strauss has in-

herited a large portion of “original sin” from this great patri-

arch of theological errors, — this father of lies. To turn one of 

his own war-elephants against himself, he has looked so long 

at mythical stories, that, dazzled thereby, like men who have 

gazed earnestly upon the sun, he can see nothing but myths 

wherever he turns his eye, — myths of all colors. This tendency 

to see myths is the Proton Pseudos, the fi rst fi b of his system. 

It has been maintained by many, that the Bible, in both divi-

sions, contained myths. Some of his own adversaries admit 

their existence, to a large extent, even in the New Testament. 

But with them the myth itself not only embodies an Idea, as 

Strauss affi rms, but also covers a fact, which preceded it. Men 

do not make myths out of the air, but out of historical materi-

als. Besides, where did they obtain the Idea? This question he 

answers poorly. Shaftesbury long ago said, with much truth, 

that if a Hebrew sage was asked a deep question, he answered 

it by telling a story; but the story, for the most part, had some 

truth in it. Strauss is peculiar in carrying his theory farther 

than anyone before him; yet he is not always perfectly true to 

his principles; his humanity sometimes leaves a little histori-

---