THEODORE
PARKER
298
STRAUSS
’
S
LIFE
OF
JESUS
299
cal earth clinging to the roots of the tree, which he transplants
into the cold thin atmosphere of the “Absolute.” Taking the
Bible as it is, says good Dr. Ullmann, there are three ways of
treating it. We may believe every word is historically true, from
Genesis to Revelation; that there is neither myth nor fable —
and this is the theory of some supernaturalists, like Hengsten-
berg and his school; or with Strauss, that there is no historical
ground, which is fi rm and undeniably certain, but only a little
historical matter, around which tradition has wrapped legends
and myths; or, fi nally, that the Bible, and in particular the
New Testament, “always rests on historical ground, though it
is not common historical ground, nor is it so rigidly historical
that no legendary or mythical elements have entered it. The
two former theories recommend themselves, for their simplic-
ity; but neither can be maintained, while the third is natural,
easy, and offends neither the cultivated understanding nor
the pious heart.
It is wonderful, we think, that some of the absurdities of
the theory Mr. Strauss supports have not struck the author
himself. He reverses the order of things; makes the effect pre-
cede the cause; the Idea appear in the mass, before it was seen
in an individual, “As Plato’s God formed the world by look-
ing on the eternal ideas, so has the community, taking occa-
sion from the person and fate of Jesus, projected the image of
its Christ, and unconsciously the idea of mankind, in its rela-
tions to God, has been waving before its eyes.” He makes a be-
lief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ spring up out of
the community, take hold on the world, and produce a revo-
lution in all human affairs perfectly unexampled; and all this
without any adequate historical cause. No doubt, theologians
in his country, as well as our own, have attempted to prove too
much, and so failed to prove anything. Divines, like kings, lose
their just inheritance, when they aspire at universal empire.
But this justifi es no man in the court of logic, for rejecting all
historical faith. If there was not an historical Christ to ideal-
ize, there could be no ideal Christ to seek in history. We doubt
if there was genius enough in the world in the fi rst two, or the
fi rst twenty centuries since Christ, to devise such a character
as his, with so small an historical capital, as Strauss leaves us.
No doubt, we commit great errors in seeking for too much of
historical matter. Christian critics, says De Wette, will not be
satisfi ed with knowing as much respecting Christ as Paul and
the apostles knew. No one of them, though they were eye-wit-
nesses, had such a complete, consistent, and thoroughly his-
torical picture of the life of Christ, as we seek after. Many of
the primitive Christians could scarcely know of Christ’s his-
tory a tenth part of what our catechumens learn, and yet they
were more inspired and better believers than we. It is much
learning, which makes us so mad; not the Apostle Paul.* But
if we cannot prove all things, we can hold fast to enough that
is good.
Mr. Strauss takes the idea, which forms the subject, as he
thinks, of a Christian myth, out of the air, and then tells us how
the myth itself grew out of that idea. But he does not always
prove from history or the nature of things, that the idea ex-
isted before the story or the fact was invented. He fi nds certain
opinions, prophecies, and expectations in the Old Testament,
and affi rms at once these were both the occasion and cause of
the later stories, in which they reappear. This method of treat-
ment requires very little ingenuity, on the part of the critic; we
could resolve half of Luther’s life into a series of myths, which
are formed after the model of Paul’s history; indeed, this has
already been done. Nay, we could dissolve any given histori-
cal event in a mythical solution, and then precipitate the “sem-
inal ideas” in their primitive form. We also can change an his-
torical character into a symbol of “universal humanity.” The
* L. c. p. 221.
THEODORE
PARKER
300
STRAUSS
’
S
LIFE
OF
JESUS
301
whole history of the United States of America, for example, we
might call a tissue of mythical stories, borrowed in part from
the Old Testament, in part from the Apocalypse, and in part
from fancy. The British government oppressing the Puritans
is the “great red dragon” of the Revelation, as it is shown, by
the national arms, and by the British legend of Saint George
and the Dragon, The splendid career of the new people is bor-
rowed from the persecuted woman’s poetical history, her dress
— “clothed with the sun.” The stars said to be in the national
banner, are only the crown of twelve stars on the poetic be-
ing’s head; the perils of the pilgrims in the Mayfl ower are only
the woman’s fl ight on the wings of a great eagle. The war be-
tween the two countries is only “the practical application” of
the fl ood which the dragon cast out against the woman, &c.*
The story of the Declaration of Independence is liable to many
objections, if we examine it a la mode Strauss. The congress
was held at a mythical town, whose very name is suspicious, —
Philadelphia, — Brotherly Love. The date is suspicious; it was
the fourth day of the fourth month, (reckoning from April, as
it is probable the Heraclidæ, and Scandinavians; possible that
the aboriginal Americans, and certain that the Hebrews did. )
Now four was a sacred number with the Americans; the pres-
ident was chosen for four years; there were four departments
of affairs; four divisions of the political powers, namely, — the
people, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary, &c. Be-
sides, which is still more incredible, three of the presidents,
two of whom, it is alleged signed the declaration, died on the
fourth of July, and the two latter exactly
fi fty years after they
had signed it, and about the same hour of the day. The year
also is suspicious; 1776 is but an ingenious combination of the
* We borrowed this hint from a sermon heard in childhood, “opening
this Scripture,” and explaining this prophecy, as relating to America.
sacred number, four, which is repeated three times, and then
multiplied by itself to produce the date; thus, 444 × 4 = 1776,
Q. E. D. Now dividing the fi rst (444) by the second (4), we have
Unity thrice repeated (111.) This is a manifest symbol of the
national oneness, (likewise represented in the motto, e pluri-
bus unum,) and of the national
religion, of which the Trini-
form Monad, or “Trinity in Unity” and “Unity in Trinity,” is the
well-known sign!! Still farther, the Declaration is metaphysi-
cal, and presupposes an acquaintance with the transcendental
philosophy, on the part of the American people. Now the Kri-
tik of Pure Reason was not published till after the Declaration
was made. Still farther, the Americans were never, to use the
nebulous expressions of certain philosophers, an “idealo-tran-
scendental-and-subjective,” but an “objective-and-concretivo-
practical” people, to the last degree; therefore a metaphysical
document, and most of all a “legal-congressional-metaphysi-
cal” document is highly suspicious if found among them. Be-
sides, Hualteperah, the great historian of Mexico, a neighbor-
ing state, never mentions this document; and farther still, if
this Declaration had been made, and accepted by the whole
nation, as it is pretended, then we cannot account for the fact,
that the fundamental maxim of that paper, namely, the soul’s
equality to itself, — “all men are born free and equal” — was
perpetually lost sight of, and a large portion of the people kept
in slavery; still later, petitions, — supported by this fundamen-
tal article, — for the abolition of slavery, were rejected by Con-
gress with unexampled contempt, when, if the history is not
mythical, slavery never had a legal existence after 1776, &c.
&c. But we could go on in this way forever. “I’ll” prate “you so
eight years together; dinners, and suppers, and sleeping hours
excepted; it is the right butter-woman’s rank to market.” We
are forcibly reminded of the ridiculous prediction of Lichten-
berg, mentioned by Jacobi; “Our world will by-and-by become