THEODORE
PARKER
302
STRAUSS
’
S
LIFE
OF
JESUS
303
so fi ne, that it will be as ridiculous to believe in a God, as now
it is to believe in ghosts; and then again the world will become
still fi ner, and it will rush hastily up to the very tip-top of re-
fi nement. Having reached the summit, the judgment of our
sages will once more turn about; knowledge will undergo its
last metamorphosis. Then — this will be the end — we shall be-
lieve in nothing but ghosts; we shall be as God; we shall know
that Being and Essence is, and can be only, — Ghost. At that
time the salt sweat of seriousness will be wiped dry from every
brow; the tears of anxiety will be washed from every eye; loud
laughter will peal out among men, for Reason will then have
completed her work; humanity will have reached its goal, and
a crown will adorn the head of each transfi gured man.”*
The work of Strauss has produced a great sensation in Ger-
many, and especially in Berlin. It has called forth replies from
all quarters, and of all characters, from the scurrilous invec-
tive to the heavy theological treatise. It has been met by learn-
ing and sagacity, perhaps greater than his own, and he has
yielded on some points. He has retorted upon some of his an-
tagonists, using the same weapons with which they assailed
him.† He has even turned upon them, and carried the war into
their borders, and laid waste their country, with the old Teu-
tonic war-spirit. We have never read a controversy more awful
than his reply to Eschenmeyer and Menzel. Porson’s criticism
of poor Mr. Travis was a lullaby in comparison. But he has re-
plied to Ullman, — a Christian in heart, apparently, as well
as in theology, — as a child to a father. His letters to this gen
* This quotation seems to be a classic common-place against all new
schools. Jacobi applied to it Idealism and Nature-Philosophy, and both
Tholuck and Hengstenberg cast it upon Strauss. A writer in the Princeton
Repertory “sips the thrice-drawn infusion,” and gives the passage a new
application.
† Streitschriften zur Vertheidigung meiner Kritik, 1837–8; 3 Hefte,
8vo.
tleman are models for theological controversy. He has modi-
fi ed many of his opinions, as his enemies or his friends have
pointed out his errors, and seems most indebted to Neander,
Tholuck, Weisse, Ullman, and De Wette, not to mention nu-
merous humbler and more hostile names.
His work is not to be ranked with any previous attacks
upon Christianity. It not only surpasses all its predecessors
in learning, acuteness, and thorough investigation, but it is
marked by a serious and earnest spirit. He denounces with
vehemence the opinion that the Gospels were written to de-
ceive. There is none of the persifl age of the English deists;
none of the haughty scorn and bitter mockery of the far-famed
Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist. He is much more Christian in ex-
pressing his unbelief than Hengstenberg and many others in
their faith. We could wish the language a little more studied in
some places. Two or three times he is frivolous; but in general,
the style is elevated, and manly, and always pretty clear. We
do not remember to have met with a sneer in the whole book.
In this respect it deserves a great praise, which can rarely be
bestowed on the defenders of Christianity, to their shame be
it spoken.
The work derives its importance not more from the novelty
of its views, than from the fact that it is a concentration of ob-
jections to historical Christianity. Viewed in this light, its im-
portance has by no means been exaggerated. It is sometimes
said, had the work been published in England, it would have
been forgotten in two months; but no man who has read the
book, and is familiar with the history of theology, ever believes
such a statement. We should be glad to see the English schol-
ars, who are to measure swords with a Strauss, as the Cud-
worths, Warburtons, Sherlocks, Lardners, and Clarkes en-
countered their antagonists in other days, when there were
giants among the English clergy.
THEODORE
PARKER
304
STRAUSS
’
S
LIFE
OF
JESUS
305
“ ’T is no war as everybody knows,
Where only one side deals the blows,
And t’ other bears ’em.”
We have no doubt which side would “bear the blows” for the
next fi ve-and-twenty years, should any one be provoked to
translate Strauss to a London public.*
We cannot regard this book as the work of a single man; it
is rather the production of the age. An individual raised up by
God discovers a great truth, which makes an epoch, and by its
seminal character marks the coming ages. But a book like this,
which denotes merely a crisis, a revolution, is the aggregate of
many works. Like Kant’s Kritik, it is the necessary result of the
great German movement, as much so as Spinoza’s theological
treatises were of the Cartesian principles; and, indeed, the po-
sition of Strauss is in many respects not unlike that of Spinoza:
Both mark a crisis; both struck at the most deeply cherished
theological doctrines of their times. Before mankind could
pass over the great chasm between the frozen realm of stiff su-
pernaturalism, and lifeless rationalism, on the one side, and
the fair domain of free religious thought, where the only es-
sential creed is the Christian motto, “Be perfect, as your Father
in Heaven is perfect,” and the only essential form of Religion
is Love to your neighbor as to yourself, and to God with the
whole heart, mind, and soul, on the other, — some one must
plunge in, devoting himself unconsciously, or even against his
will, for the welfare of the race. This hard lot Strauss has cho-
sen for himself, and done what many wished to have done, but
none dared to do. His book, therefore, must needs be negative,
destructive, and unsatisfactory. Mr. Strauss must not be taken
* See Observations on the Attempted Application of Pantheistic Prin-
ciples to the Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospel, &c., by W. H.
Mill, D. D. F. R. A. S., and Chaplain to his Grace the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. Part I. London, 1840.
as the representative of the German theologians. Men of all
parties condemn his work; and men of all parties accept it.
You see its infl uence in the writings of Tholuck, De Wette, and
Neander; men that have grown old in being taught and teach-
ing. The liberal party has fallen back, afraid of its principles;
the stationary party has come forward, though reluctantly. The
wonderful ability with which it is written, the learning, so vari-
ous and exact, wherewith it is stored, are surprising in any one,
but truly extraordinary in so juvenile an author; born 1808.
For our own part, we rejoice that the book has been written,
though it contains much that we cannot accept. May the evil
it produces soon end! But the good it does must last forever.
To estimate it aright, we must see more than a negative work
in its negations. Mr. Strauss has plainly asked the question,
“What are the historical facts that lie at the basis of the Chris-
tian movement?” Had he written with half this ability, and
with no manner of fairness, in defence of some popular dogma
of his sect, and against freedom of thought and reason, no
praise would have been too great to bestow upon him. What if
he is sometimes in error; was a theologian never mistaken be-
fore ? What if he does push his mythical hypothesis too far; did
Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, make no mistakes? Did they commit
no sins? Yet Strauss, we think, has never cursed, and are cer-
tain that he never burned an opponent! We honor the manly
openness which has said so plainly what was so strongly felt.
We cannot say, as a late highly distinguished divine used to
say, that we “ should not be sorry to see the work republished
here,” because there is no general theological scholarship to
appreciate its merits and defects. With many of his doctrines,
as we understand them, especially his dogmas relative to God
and Immortality, we have no sympathy; but as little fear that
they will do a permanent injury any where. We still believe our
real enemies are “the Flesh and the Devil,” and that neither the
philosophy of Hegel, nor the Biblical Criticism of the Germans
THEODORE
PARKER
306
STRAUSS
’
S
LIFE
OF
JESUS
307
will ever weaken the popular faith in God or man, or the pure
religion that mediates between the two. Strauss has thrown
a huge stone into the muddy pool of theology, and it will be
long before its splashing waters fi nd their former repose and
level. Let it not be supposed Strauss is an exponent of the Ger-
man school of theology or religion, as it is sometimes unwisely
urged. He is a single element in a vast mass. His work fi nds
opponents in the leaders of the three great Protestant theolog-
ical parties in Germany. The main body of theologians there is
represented by Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Neander, De Wette,
and men of a similar spirit. Strauss is the representative of a
small party. He is by no means the representative of the fol-
lowers of Hegel, many of whom are opposed to him.*
The whole book has the savor of Pantheism pervading it, as
we think, using Pantheism in its best sense, if our readers can
fi nd a good sense for it. He does not admit a personal God, we
are told, and, therefore, would not admit of a personal Christ,
or incarnation of God. This, we suspect, is the sole cause of his
aversion to personalities. But he nowhere avows this openly
and plainly; we, therefore, only give it as our conjecture,
though Tholuck openly calls him a Pantheist of the school of
Hegel, defi ning that school “Atheistic;” while Ullmann brings
the same charge, but with much more modesty, asking men to
translate it more mildly if they can.
We are not surprised at the sensation Mr. Strauss has ex-
cited in Germany, nor at the number of replies, which have
been showered down upon him. Destruction always makes a
great noise, and attracts the crowd, but nobody knows when
the Gospels were published, and the world, doubtless, was in
*See, for example, an article on the second volume of the “Leben
Jesu,” in the Berlin “Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Kritik,” for 1836.
Band I. p. 681, seq., by Bruno Bauer.
no great haste to receive them. It is fortunate the book has
been written in the only country where it can be readily an-
swered. We have no fears for the fi nal result. Doubtless, some
will be shaken in their weakly rooted faith; and the immediate
effect will probably be bad; worse than former religious revo-
lutions with them. The Rationalists took possession of the pul-
pit, but unlike Strauss, says Mr. Tholuck, they pulled down
no churches. But we have no fear that any church will be de-
stroyed by him. If a church can be destroyed by a criticism,
or a book, however pungent, the sooner it falls the better. A
church, we think, was never written down, except by itself. To
write down the true Christian Church seems to us as absurd
as to write down the solar system, or put an end to tears, joys,
and prayers. Still less have we any fear, that Christianity it-
self should come to an end, as some appear to fancy; a form
of Religion, which has been the parent and the guardian of all
modern civilization; which has sent its voice to the ends of the
world; and now addresses equally the heart of the beggar and
the monarch; which is the only bond between societies; an in-
stitution, cherished and clung to by the choicest hopes, the
deepest desires of the human race, is not in a moment to be
displaced by a book. “There has long been a fable among men,”
says an illustrious German writer, “and even in these days is it
often heard; unbelief invented it, and little-belief has taken it
up. It runs thus; there will come a time, and, perhaps, it has
already come, when it will be all over with this Jesus of Naz-
areth; and this is right. The memory of a single man is fruit-
ful only for a time. The human race must thank him for much;
God has brought much to pass through him. But he is only one
of us, and his hour to be forgotten will soon strike. It has been
his earnest desire to render the world entirely free; it must,
therefore, be his wish to make it free also from himself, that
God may be all in all. Then men will not only know that they
THEODORE
PARKER
308
have power enough in themselves to obey perfectly the will of
God; but in the perfect knowledge of this, they can go beyond
its requisitions, if they only will! Yea, when the Christian name
is forgotten, then for the fi rst time shall a universal kingdom of
Love and Truth arise, in which there shall lie no more any seed
of enmity, that from the beginning has been continually sown
between such as believe in Jesus, and the children of men. But
this fable can never be true. Ever, since the day that he was
in the fl esh, the Redeemer’s image has been stamped inefface-
ably on the hearts of men. Even if the letter should perish, —
which is holy, only because it preserves to us this image, — the
image itself would remain forever. It is stamped so deep in the
heart of man, that it never can be effaced, and the word of the
Apostle will ever be true, ‘Lord, whither shall we go? thou only
hast the words of eternal life.’”*
* While we have been preparing these pages, we have sometimes glanced
at another book, attacking Christianity. Its title is Jesus-Christ et sa doc-
trine, Histoire de la Naissance de l’Eglise, de son organization et de ses
progrès, pendant le premier siècle, par J. Salvador. Paris: 1838. 2 vols.
8vo.; a work of great pretensions and very little merit.
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
About the Author
T
HEODORE
P
ARKER
was born in 1810 in Lexington, Massachu-
setts, the tenth and youngest child of a farm family. His mother died
when he was 12. At 16, he became a schoolteacher. At 19, he passed
the entrance examinations for Harvard College, but was unable to at-
tend. At 22, he started an academy at Watertown, where he met Lydia
Dodge Cabot. He gained admission to Harvard Divinity School in 1834
and graduated in 1836. In 1837, he married Lydia Cabot and became
minister of the West Roxbury Unitarian church. Parker’s studies of the
new German historical biblical criticism, especially W. M. L. De Wet-
te’s Critical and Historical Introduction to the Old Testament (1817)
and D. F. Strauss’s Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (1835), led him
to speak out publically against the literal factuality of biblical miracles
and prophecies. This brought him into confl ict with some other Uni-
tarian ministers and their association, but it brought him into con-
tact with the emerging Transcendentalists, including Ralph Waldo
Emerson, Margaret Fuller, and George Ripley. He published numer-
ous articles in The Dial during its brief existence, and his controver-
sies with the Unitarians became more public and more pronounced.
In 1846 he resigned from his church in West Roxbury to become min-
ister of the newly-formed 28th Congregational Society in Boston,
which met at fi rst in the Melodeon Theater and later in the Boston
Music Hall, eventually drawing crowds of more than 2,000 worship-
pers. He denounced the Mexican War, opposed and resisted the Fu-
gitive Slave Act, and secretly helped fi nance John Brown’s insurrec-
tion. Parker became ill with tuberculosis in 1858–1859, and sought
to recoup his health by travel. He died May 10, 1860 in Florence, It-
aly. An excellent biographical sketch by Dean Grodzins is online at
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/theodoreparker.html
Abstract
David Strauss’s Das Leben Jesu (1835) was one of the most infl u-
ential and controversial theological works of the nineteenth century.
It was fi rst translated into English by Mary Ann Evans (“George El-
iot”) in 1860, and is said to have been an important early infl uence on
Friedrich Nietzsche. Strauss (1808-1874) applied the methods of Ger-
man “higher criticism” or textual criticism to the Gospels, and argued
that their accounts of Jesus’ miracles and prophecies were to be un-
derstood “mythically”—as products of the early church’s use of Jew-
ish messianic ideas and expectations to underscore the conviction
that Jesus was the Messiah.
Parker’s long (20,000 words) review recaps Strauss’s arguments
regarding the birth, genealogy, career, and miracles of Jesus, and
places Strauss’s work in the context of German and English theol-
ogy and philosophy. He writes: “It is not our aim to write a polemic
against the author of the ‘Life of Jesus,’ but to describe his book or
‘defi ne his position,’ as the politicians are wont to say. The work in
question comprises, fi rst, an Introduction, relating to the formation
of ‘the Mythical stand-point,’ from which the Evangelical history is
to be contemplated; second, the main work itself, which is divided
into three books, relating respectively to the History of the Birth and
Childhood of Jesus; his Public Life; his Sufferings, Death, and Res-
urrection; third, a conclusion of the whole book, or the doctrinal sig-
nifi cance of the life of Jesus. … [A] more descriptive title would be, A
Fundamental Criticism on the Four Gospels; … it is not a history, but
a criticism and collection of materials, out of which a conjectural his-
tory may be constructed. … The general manner of treating the sub-
ject, and arranging the chapters, sections, and parts of the argument,
indicates consummate dialectical skill; while the style is clear, the ex-
pression direct, and the author’s openness in referring to his sources
of information, and stating his conclusions in all their simplicity, is
candid and exemplary.”
While Parker does take issue with the “presuppositions” with
which Strauss approached his materials, he nonetheless concludes:
“The wonderful ability with which it is written, the learning, so var-
ious and exact, wherewith it is stored, are surprising in any one, but
truly extraordinary in so juvenile an author; born 1808. For our own
part, we rejoice that the book has been written, though it contains
much that we cannot accept. May the evil it produces soon end! But
the good it does must last forever. To estimate it aright, we must see
more than a negative work in its negations. Mr. Strauss has plainly
asked the question, ‘What are the historical facts that lie at the ba-
sis of the Christian movement?’ Had he written with half this ability,
and with no manner of fairness, in defence of some popular dogma of
his sect, and against freedom of thought and reason, no praise would
have been too great to bestow upon him.”
Controversies over the literal-historical status of the miracles
and prophecies of the New Testament played an important role in
the evolution of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism. Parker’s re-
view brought the European debate into American homes and pulpits
and was an important factor in the development of liberal theology in
New England.
The review was published originally in the Christian Examiner for
Yüklə 376 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş: |