Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

258

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

259

Moses wrote the Pentateuch on the march through the wilder-

ness, and the latter believes the genuineness of the Gospels. 

Both of these sacrifi ce the literal history for the sake of the 

great truths contained in the book.

Kant took a different position. He did not concern him-

self with the history, but only with the idea the history un-

folded; this idea he considered not as theoretical and practi-

cal, but only the latter. He did not refer it to the divine mind, 

but to that of the writer, or his interpreter. Christian writers, 

he says, have so long interpreted these books, that they seem 

to harmonize with universal moral laws. But the Greeks and 

Romans did the same, and made Polytheism only a symbol of 

the various attributes of the One God, thus giving a mystical 

sense to the basest actions of the gods, and the wildest dreams 

of the poets. In the same way the Christian writings must be 

explained, so as to make them harmonize with the universal 

laws of a pure moral Religion. This, even if it does violence to 

the text, must be preferred to the literal interpretation, which, 

in many instances, would afford no support to morality, and 

would sometimes counteract the moral sense. Thus he makes 

David’s denunciation of his foes signify the desire to overcome 

obstacles; but thinks it is not necessary these ideas should 

have been present to the mind of the writer of the books.

Here, Mr. Strauss continues, was, on the one hand, an un-

historical, and on the other, an unphilosophical method of 

treating the Bible. The progressive study of mythology shed 

light upon this subject. Eichhorn had made the reasonable 

demand, that the Bible should be treated like other ancient 

books; but Paulus, attempting to treat others as he treated the 

Bible, could not naturalize the Greek legends and myths. Such 

scholars as Schelling and Gabler began to fi nd myths in the Bi-

ble, and apply to them the maxim of Heyne, “a mythis omnis 

priscorum hominum cum historia, tum philosophia procedit.” 

Bauer ventured to write a Hebrew mythology of the Old and 

New Testament. A myth was defi ned to be a narration proceed-

ing from an age, when there was no written, authentic history, 

but when facts were preserved and related by oral tradition. It 

is a myth, if it contains an account of things, — related in an 

historical way, — which absolutely could not be the objects of 

experience, such as events that took place in the supersensual 

world, or, which could not relatively be objects of experience, 

such, for example, as, from the nature of the case no man could 

witness. Or, fi nally, it is a myth, if the narrative is elaborated 

into the wonderful, and is related in symbolic language.

Now the naturalistic method of interpreting the Bible 

could only be resorted to on the supposition of its historical 

accuracy, and that it was written contemporary with the events 

it relates. Accordingly, men who denied this, carried out the 

mythical theory. The Pentateuch, says Vater, can be under-

stood only on the supposition it was not written by eye-wit-

nesses. De Wette declared still more strongly against the nat-

uralistic, and in favor of the mythical hypothesis. To test the 

credibility of an account, he says, we must examine the writ-

er’s tendency. He may write history, and yet have a poetic ten-

dency, and such is the case with the writers of the Old Tes-

tament. Fact and fi ction are blended together therein, and 

we cannot separate them, because we have no criterion or 

touch-stone, by which to examine them. The only source of 

our knowledge of events is the narrative relating the histori-

cal facts. We cannot go beyond this. In regard to the Old Tes-

tament, we must admit or reject these narratives; in the latter 

case, we relinquish all claim to any knowledge of the affairs re-

lated, for we have no other evidence respecting them. We have 

no right to impose a natural explanation on what is related as 

a miracle. It is entirely arbitrary to say the fact is genuine his-

tory, and the drapery alone is poetical; for example, we have 

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

260

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

261

no right to say Abraham thought he would make a covenant 

with God, and that this fact lies at the bottom of the poetic nar-

rative. Nor do we know what Abraham thought. If we follow 

the narrative, we must take the fact as it is; if we reject it, we 

have no knowledge of the fact itself. It is not reasonable that 

Abraham should have such thoughts of his descendants pos-

sessing Palestine centuries afterwards, but quite natural, that 

they should write this poetic fi ction to glorify their ancestor.

Thus the naturalistic explanation destroys itself, and the 

mythical takes its place. Even Eichhorn confessed the former 

could not be applied to the New Testament, and Gabler, long 

ago, maintained, that there are in the New Testament, not only 

erroneous judgments upon facts, which an eye-witness might 

make; but also false facts and improbable results mentioned, 

which an eyewitness could not relate, but which were gradu-

ally formed by tradition, and are, therefore, to be considered 

myths. The circumstance of writings and books being well 

known at the time of Christ, does not preclude the mythical 

view; for the facts must have been preserved orally long before 

they were written down. Besides, says Bauer, we have not in the 

New Testament a whole series of myths, but only single myth-

ical stories. Anecdotes are told of a great man, which assume 

a more extraordinary character, the farther they spread. In a 

miracle-loving age, the obscure youth of Jesus would, after his 

name became illustrious, be embellished with miraculous sto-

ries of celestial beings visiting his parents, predicting his birth 

and character. Where the records or authentic tradition failed, 

men gave loose to fancy, to historical conjectures, and reason-

ings in the style of the Jewish Christians, and thus created the 

philosophic myths of primitive Christian history. But men did 

not sit down with fancy aforethought, saying, “Go to, now, let 

us make myths;” but they were gradually formed; a little was 

added here, and a little there. They would relate chiefl y to the 

obscurest part of Christ’s history. In obedience to this princi-

ple, Eichhorn, seeing that only a slender thread of apostolical 

tradition runs through the three fi rst Gospels, rejects several 

stories from the life of Jesus, which offended his critical taste; 

for example, the gospel of the infancy, the temptation, some of 

his miracles, the resurrection of the saints at his death.

Now, Mr. Strauss objects to his predecessors, that for the most 

part, their idea of a myth is not just and defi nite; for in the 

case of a historical myth, they permit the interpreter to sep-

arate a natural, historical fact from the miraculous embel-

lishments, which they refer to tradition; not, as the natural-

ist had done, to the original author. Thus the naturalist and 

the supernaturalist could admit historical but not philosoph-

ical myths, for then the entire historical basis seemed to fall 

away. Again, these views were not applied extensively — as far 

as they would go. Eichhorn admitted there was a myth on the 

threshold of the Old Testament. When the mythical hypoth-

esis reached the New Testament, it was not permitted to go 

beyond the very entrance. It was admitted there could be no 

certain accounts of the early life of Jesus, and therefore that 

many false stories, suited to the taste of the times and the or-

acles of the Old Testament, have taken the place which there 

was no history to fi ll. But this does not in the slightest degree 

impair the credibility of the subsequent narrative. The evange-

lists give an account of the three last years of his life; and here 

they were themselves eye-witnesses, or took the word of eye-

witnesses. Then objections were brought against the end of the 

history, and the Ascension was considered spurious or mythi-

cal. Thus critical doubts began to nibble at both ends of the 

narrative, while the middle remained untouched, or as some 

one has said, “ Theologians entered the domain of Evangelical 

history through the gorgeous portals of the myth, and passed 

---