Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

262

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

263

out at a similar gate; but in all that lay between these limits, 

they were content to take the crooked and toilsome paths of 

naturalistic explanation.”

Mr. Strauss next inquires, whether it is possible there 

should be myths in the New Testament, and, judging from 

outward arguments, he thinks it possible. Most Christians, 

he says, believe that is false which the Heathen relate of their 

gods, and the Mahometans of their prophet, while the Scrip-

tures relate only what is true respecting the acts of God, Christ, 

and the holy men. But this is a prejudice founded on the as-

sumption that Christianity differs from heathen religions in 

the fact, that it alone is an historical, while they are mythical 

religions. But this is the result of a partial and confi ned view; 

for each of the other religions brings this charge against its ri-

vals, and all derive their own origin from the direct agency of 

God. It is supposed that the Gospels were written by eye-wit-

nesses, who were not deceived themselves, and were not de-

ceivers, and, therefore, no room is left for the formation, or in-

sertion of myths. But it is only a prejudice, that the Gospels 

were written by eye-witnesses. The names of Matthew and 

John, for example, prefi xed to these writings, prove nothing; 

for the Pentateuch bears the name of Moses, though it must 

have been written long after him; some of the Psalms bear 

the name of David, though they were written during the exile, 

and the book of Daniel ascribes itself to that prophet, though 

it was not written before the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. 

He fi nds little reason for believing the genuineness or the au-

thenticity of the Gospels. Indeed, he regards them all as spuri-

ous productions of well-meaning men, who collected the tra-

ditions that were current in the part of the world, where they 

respectively lived. This is the weakest part of his book, impor-

tant as the question is; yet weak as it is, his chief argument 

rests upon it. The proofs of the spuriousness of these books 

are quite too feeble and uncertain for his purpose, and accord-

ingly we are pleased to see, from the preface and many pas-

sages of the third edition, that his doubts upon the genuine-

ness of John’s Gospel have become doubtful, even to himself, 

after a farther study of it, with the aid of the recent works of 

Neander and De Wette.*

Again, judging from the character of the books themselves, 

myths, according to Strauss, might be expected in the New Tes-

tament. I t is sometimes said, the mythical stories of the Bible 

differ from the Greek myths, in their superior moral charac-

ter; but the alleged immorality of the Greek myths arises from 

mistaking their sense, and some of the myths in the Old Tes-

tament are immoral; and if they could be formed, much easier 

could moral myths be made and accepted. It is sometimes said 

in opposition to the mythical hypothesis, that all these stories 

in the Bible appear natural, if you admit the direct agency of 

God. But the same remark applies equally to the Greek and 

Indian myths. Still farther, it is said, the Heathen myths rep-

resent God as a changing being, and thus contain the natural 

history of God, and the birth, infancy, youth, and manhood of 

Apollo, or Jupiter, for example; while those of the Bible repre-

sent Jehovah as eternally the same. But Jesus, the Son of God, 

the divine Logos incarnated, is the subject of history. Others 

say, there can be no myths, because the time of Jesus was an 

historical and not a mythical age; but all parts of the world 

were not fi lled with the historical spirit, and fi ctions might eas-

ily grow up among the people, who had no design to deceive, 

and thus myths be formed. This is the more probable, for in an-

cient times, among the Hebrews, and in particular in the reli-

gious circles of that people, history and fi ction, like poetry and 

prose, were never carefully separated, and the most respectable 

* Neander’s Leben Jesu; De Wette’s Exegetische Handbuch der N. T. 

Commentar in Johan.

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

264

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

265

writers, among the Jews and early Christians, wrote works, 

and ascribed them to distinguished men of an earlier age.

His defi nition and criteria of a myth are as follows: a myth 

has two sides; fi rst, it is not a history; and second, it is a fi c-

tion, which has been produced by the state of mind of a cer-

tain community.

I. It is not an historical statement: ( 1) if it contradict the 

well known laws of causality, (and here belong the direct ac-

tions and supernatural appearances of God and the angels, 

miracles, prophecies, and voices from Heaven, violations of 

the order of succession, and well known psychological laws;) 

and (2) when the writers or witnesses contradict each other, 

in respect to time, (for example, of the purifi cation of the tem-

ple,) place, (the residence of Joseph and Mary,) number, (the 

Gadarenes and angels at the grave,) or in respect to names and 

other circumstances.

II. A narrative is shown to be legendary or fi ctitious, (1) if 

it is poetical in form, and the discourses of the characters are 

longer and more inspired than we need expect, (for example, 

the discourses of Jesus,) and (2) if the substance of the narra-

tive agrees remarkably with the preconceived opinions of the 

community where it originated, it is more or less probable the 

narrative grew out of the opinion. He adds several qualifi ca-

tions and modifi cations of these tests.

Having thus drawn lines of circumvallation and contraval-

lation about the Gospels, Mr. Strauss thus opens the attack 

upon the outworks. The narrative in Luke relating to John the 

Baptist, he says, is not authentic; it is not probable the angelic 

state is constituted as it is here supposed. This idea was bor-

rowed by the later Jews from the Zend religion, and the name 

of the angel Gabriel, and his offi ce to stand before God, are 

Babylonian. The angel’s discourse and conduct are objection-

able; he commands that the child shall be trained up as a Naz-

arite, and smites Zacharias with dumbness, which is not con-

sistent with “theocratic decorum.” Admitting the existence of 

angels, they could not reveal themselves to men, since they be-

long to different spheres. The naturalists and supernaturalists 

fail to render this story credible, and we are, therefore, forced 

to doubt its literal accuracy. Some writers suppose there are 

historical facts at the bottom of this tale, for example, the ste-

rility of Elizabeth, the sudden dumbness of Zacharias, and his 

subsequent restoration. But there is no better reason for ad-

mitting these facts, than for admitting the whole story. It must 

be regarded as a myth, and is evidently wrought out in imi-

tation of others in the Old Testament. It resembles the story 

of Sarah, in the age of the parties; Elizabeth is a daughter of 

Aaron, whose wife bore this same name. The appearance of 

the angel, who foretels the birth of John, his character, and 

destiny, is evidently an imitation of the prophecy respecting 

Samson, and there is a very strong resemblance between the 

language of Luke in this part of the story, and that of the Sep-

tuagint in the account of Samson’s birth. The conclusion of the 

story (Luke i. 80,) resembles the end of the story of Ishmael, 

(Gen. xxi. 20.) The name of John, [God’s Gift] which was not 

a family name, renders the narrative still more suspicious. 

Thus the whole is a myth. We think Mr. Strauss, for the sake 

of consistency, ought to deny that John the Baptist was an his-

torical person, and doubtless he would have done so, were it 

not for an unfortunate passage in Josephus, which mentions 

that prophet. A rigorous application of his tests would deprive 

John of historical existence. But Josephus saves him.

He next examines the genealogies of Jesus.

Matthew enumerates three series, each of fourteen genera-

tions, or forty-two persons in the whole, between Abraham and 

Jesus, and gives the names of the individuals; but the num-

ber actually given does not agree with his enumeration, and 

no hypothesis relieves us of the diffi culty. If we compare this 

---