Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

254

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

255

written documents, sooner or later, there comes a difference 

between the old document and the modern discoveries and 

culture shown in works written to explain it. So long as the 

difference is not total, attempts will be made to reconcile the 

two. A great part of religious documents relate to sacred his-

tory, to events and instances of the Deity stepping into the cir-

cle of human affairs. Subsequently, doubts arise as to the fact, 

and it is said “the divinity could not have done as it is alleged,” 

or, “the deed could not be divine.” Then attempts are made to 

show either that these deeds were never done, and, therefore, 

the documentary record is not entitled to historical credibility, 

or that they were not done by God, and, therefore, to explain 

away the real contents of the book. In each of these cases, the 

critic may go fearlessly to work; look facts clearly in the face; 

acknowledge the statements of the old record, with the incon-

sistency between them and the truths of science; or, he may go 

to work under constraint; may blind himself to this inconsis-

tency, and seek merely to unfold the original meaning of the 

text. This took place in Greece, where religion did not rest on 

religious documents, but had yet a sort of connexion with the 

mythological stories of Homer and Hesiod, and with others, 

which circulated from mouth to mouth. The serious philos-

ophers soon saw that these stories could not be true. Hence 

arose Plato’s quarrel with Homer; hence Anaxagoras gave an 

allegorical explanation of Homer, and the Stoics naturalized 

Hesiod’s Theogony, supposing it related to the operations of 

Nature. Others, like Evhemerus, humanized and applied these 

stories to men, who by great deeds had won divine honors.

Now with the Hebrews, their stability, and their adherence 

to the supernatural stand-point would, on the one hand, pre-

vent such views being taken of their religious records; and on 

the other, would render this treatment the more necessary.  

Accordingly, after the exile, and still more after the time of 

the Maccabees, the Hebrew teachers found means to remove 

what was offensive; to fi ll up chasms, and introduce modern 

ideas into their religious books. This was fi rst done at Alexan-

dria. Philo, — following numerous predecessors, — maintained 

there was a common, and a deeper sense in the Scriptures, and 

in some cases, the literal meaning was altogether set aside; es-

pecially when it comprised anything excessively anthropomor-

phitic, or unworthy of God. Thus he gave up the historical char-

acter, to save the credit of the narrative, but never followed the 

method of Evhemerus. The Christians applied the same treat-

ment to the Old Testament, and Origen found a literal, moral, 

and  mystical sense in all parts of the Scriptures, and some-

times applied the saying, “the letter killeth, but the spirit ma-

keth alive,” to the former. Some passages, he said, had no lit-

eral sense; in others, a literal lie lay at the bottom of a mystical 

truth. Many deeds, he says, are mentioned in Scripture, which 

were never performed; fi ction is woven up with fact to lead us 

to virtue. He rejected the literal sense of those passages which 

humanize the Deity. But Origen went farther, and applied 

these same principles to the New Testament, where he found 

much that was distasteful to his philosophical palate. Here also 

he fi nds fi ction mingled with fact, and compares the Homeric 

stories of the Trojan war, in respect to their credibility, with the 

Christian narratives. In both Homer and the Gospels, he would 

consider what portions can be believed; what considered as fi g-

urative; what rejected as incredible, and the result of human 

frailty. He, therefore, does not demand a blind faith in the Gos-

pels, but would have all Christians understand, that good sense 

and diligent examination are necessary in this study, to ascer-

tain the meaning of a particular passage. But this heretical Fa-

ther was too cautious to extend these remarks, and apply them 

extensively to particular passages. The Scriptures fell into the 

hands of men, who acknowledged something divine in them; 

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

256

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

257

but denied that God had made therein particular manifesta-

tions of himself. This was done by Celsus, Porphyry, and Ju-

lian, who assented to much that is related of Moses and Jesus; 

while they found “lying legends” in other parts of the Bible.

Among the Greeks and Hebrews, whose religious literature 

was contemporary with the growth of the nation, the preva-

lence of allegorical interpretation of the sacred books, proved 

that the old forms of religion had died out, for the modern cul-

ture had outgrown the faith of the fathers of the nation. But 

in Christianity, the allegorical explanation adopted by Origen, 

and the peculiar opposition of Celsus taking place so near the 

birth of Christianity, prove that the world had not yet properly 

lived in the new form of religion. But, from the age after this 

time, when the rude Germanic nations, — too rude to fi nd any 

diffi culty in admitting the most objectionable parts of the Old 

and New Testament, — were conquering the Roman Empire, 

and becoming Christians at the same time, all proofs have dis-

appeared, which would indicate the prevalence of a manner 

of interpreting the Scriptures, that arose from a radical dis-

crepancy between the culture of mankind and the statements 

in these records. The Reformation made the fi rst breach upon 

the solid walls of Ecclesiastical faith in the letter of the Bible. 

This was the fi rst sign, that in Christianity, as formerly in Ju-

daism and Heathenism, there was a culture suffi ciently power-

ful to react upon the prevalent form of religion.

So far as the Reformation was directed against the Romish 

Church, it soon accomplished its sublime mission. But in re-

lation to the Scriptures, it took the direction of Deism. Toland 

and Bolingbroke called the Bible a collection of fabulous books. 

Others robbed the Scriptural heroes of all divine light. The 

law of Moses was considered a superstition; the apostles were 

called selfi sh; the character of Jesus was assailed; and his res-

urrection denied by a “moral philosopher.” Here belong Chubb, 

Woolston, Morgan, and the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist. These 

scholars were ably opposed by a host of apologetical writers in 

England and Germany, who defended the supernatural charac-

ter of the Bible. But in Germany there arose a different class of 

men, who designed to strip the Bible of its supernatural char-

acter, and direct divinity; but to leave its human character un-

harmed. They would not call the alleged miracles, miracles, nor 

consider them as juggling. Thus Eichhorn opposed the Deists, 

— who ascribed bad motives to the writers of Scripture, — but 

denied that there was anything supernatural in the stories of 

the Old Testament. He saw that he must deny this of the Bible, 

or admit it likewise of all ancient religious documents; for they 

all claimed it. We are not to be astonished, he says, at fi nding 

miracles in these writings, for they were produced in the in-

fancy of the world; we must interpret them in the same spirit 

that composed them. Thus he can explain the history of Noah, 

Abraham, and Moses, by natural events.

Others treated the New Testament in the same manner. 

But the fi rst Christian Evhemerus, was Dr. Paulus. He makes a 

distinction between the fact related and the judgment or opin-

ion respecting the fact; for example, between the fact and the 

writer’s opinion respecting its cause or purpose. The two, he 

supposes, are confounded in the New Testament; for its writ-

ers, like others in that age, took a supernatural view, and re-

ferred human actions to the direct agency of God. The offi ce 

of an interpreter is to separate the fact from the opinion about 

the fact. Paulus, accordingly, believes the Gospels, but denies 

the supernatural causality of the events related. Jesus is not 

the Son of God, in the ecclesiastical sense, but a good man; he 

works no miracles, but does kind deeds, sometimes by chirur-

gical skill, and sometimes by good luck. Both Paulus and Eich-

horn, in order to maintain the truth of the narrative, must re-

fer it to a date as early as possible; thus the former admits that 

---