Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

266

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

267

list with the Old Testament, it is still more objectionable, for it 

omits several well known names, and contains some mistakes. 

Luke’s genealogy differs still more widely from the Old Testa-

ment; from Nathan, the son of David, downward, he mentions 

only two persons, who occur in the Old Testament, namely 

Salathiel and Zorobabel, and even here it contradicts the nar-

ratives in 1 Chronicles, iii. 17, 19, 20. If we compare these two 

genealogies together, there is a striking difference between 

them. Luke reckons forty-one generations from David to Jo-

seph, the father of Jesus, where Matthew makes but twenty-

six, and, with the two exceptions above mentioned, the names 

are all different in the two narrations. According to Luke, the 

father of Joseph is Heli, a descendant of Nathan, son of Da-

vid; according to Matthew, Joseph’s father is Jacob, a descen-

dant of Solomon. Various attempts have been made to recon-

cile these confl icting genealogies, but they all rest on arbitrary 

suppositions. It is sometimes said one contains the genealogy 

of Joseph, the other of Mary; but this also is an arbitrary sup-

position, at variance with the text, and is not supported by any 

passage in the Bible. We must, then, conclude these geneal-

ogies are arbitrary compositions, which do not prove the Da-

vidic descent of Jesus, who was called son of David, because 

he was considered as the Messiah. It is easily conceivable that 

a Galilean, whose descent was unknown, after he had acquired 

the title of Messiah, should be represented by tradition as a 

son of David. On the strength of these traditions genealogies 

were composed, which, for want of authentic documents, were 

as various and confl icting as these two of Luke and Matthew.

He then treats of the miraculous birth of Jesus.

Here he makes use of two apocryphal Gospels, quoted 

by several of the early fathers. He shows the striking differ-

ence between the accounts of Matthew and Luke, concern-

ing the birth of Jesus. But since the same view has been taken 

amongst us by Mr. Norton, and this remarkable discrepancy 

has been pointed out by him in a work well known and justly 

valued,* it is unnecessary to enter farther into the subject. Mr. 

Norton rejects Matthew’s account as spurious and unauthen-

tic; while Mr. Strauss, with more perfect logical consistency, 

rejects likewise Luke’s narrative, on the ground that Gabriel 

talks like a Jew; that the supernatural birth is impossible; that 

if an human birth implies the sinfulness of the child, then a ce-

lestial mother is needed also, that the child may be free from 

sin. Again, there are exegetical diffi culties, for Mark and John 

omit this part of the history, and the latter had the best pos-

sible means of information, and it is always supposed in the 

New Testament that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Beside, if Jesus 

were the Son of God, how could he be the son of David, and 

why are the two genealogies given to prove that descent, one 

of which is confessed, on all hands, to be the genealogy of Jo-

seph, who, by the supernatural hypothesis, was no wise re-

lated to Jesus? In this case the genealogies would prove noth-

ing. It is not possible, they proceeded from the same hand as 

the story of the supernatural birth, and Mr. Strauss conjec-

tures they are the work of the Ebionites, who denied that ar-

ticle of faith. The attempts of the rationalists and the super-

naturalists are alike insuffi cient, he thinks, to explain away the 

diffi culties of this narrative; but if we regard it as a myth, the 

diffi culty vanishes, and its origin is easily explained. The story 

itself, in Matthew, refers to Isaiah, (vii. 14,) and that prophecy 

seems to have been the groundwork of this myth. In the old 

world, it was erroneously supposed, or pretended, that great 

men were the descendants of the gods; for example, Hercu-

les, the Dioscuri, Romulus, Pythagoras, and Plato, of whose 

remarkable birth Jerome speaks. This myth, therefore, grew

* Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, by Andrews Norton. 

Vol. I.; Boston, 1837.

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

268

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

269

naturally out of the common Jewish notions at the time, and 

was at last written down.

He next examines the account of the census, and the early 

life of Jesus.

Luke informs us that Augustus Cæsar issued a decree 

“that all the world should be taxed,” or numbered; but no 

other writer mentions a general census in the time of Augus-

tus, though a census was made in some provinces. If we limit 

the term “all the world” to Judea, still it is improbable such a 

census was made at that time, for the Romans did not make a 

census of conquered countries, until they were reduced to the 

form of a province, and Judea did not become a Roman prov-

ince, until after the disgrace and banishment of Archelaus, 

which event took place after he had reigned ten years as an al-

lied sovereign. Luke says this census was made when Quirinus 

was governor of Syria. Now it was not Quirinus, but Sentius 

Saturninus, and after him, Quint. Varus, who were proconsuls 

of Syria in the latter years of Herod I., and it was some years 

after his death that Quirinus became proconsul of Syria, and 

actually made a census, as Josephus relates. Luke also refers 

to this latter census, (Acts v. 37,) and speaks of Judas the Gal-

ilean, who rebelled on this occasion, as Josephus informs us. 

Now it cannot be true, that Jesus was born at so late a period 

as the time of this census, under Quirinus, for, — not to men-

tion the chronological diffi culties this hypothesis would create 

in the latter years of Jesus, — this census could not have ex-

tended to Galilee, the residence of Joseph and Mary, for that 

state was governed by Herod Antipas, in the capacity of allied 

Prince, and accordingly was not a province; therefore, Joseph 

would not be summoned to Judea when the census of that 

province was taken. Still farther, it is not probable the Romans 

would assemble the citizens together by families in the birth-

place of the founder of the family, to enrol them.

One evangelist makes Joseph live at Bethlehem, the other 

at Nazareth. Now the design of the author, in placing the birth 

of Jesus at Bethlehem, is obvious. He wished the prophecy in 

Micah (v. 2,) to be fulfi lled in Jesus, for the Jews applied it to 

the Messiah. The author, setting out from the opinion that Jo-

seph and Mary dwelt at Nazareth, sought for some natural 

errand to bring them to Bethlehem. He found a suitable oc-

casion in the well known census of Quirinus; but not under-

standing accurately the circumstances of the time and place, 

he has brought hopeless confusion into the narrative, if it is 

taken for genuine history. We have, therefore, no reason, con-

cludes Mr. Strauss, for believing Jesus was born at Bethlehem, 

for the story is a myth.

Other circumstances in this narrative present diffi culties. 

What purpose; asks Mr. Strauss, is served by the angels, who 

appear at the birth of Jesus?* It could not be to publish the 

fact; nor to reward the believing shepherds, who, like Simeon, 

were waiting for the consolation, nor yet to glorify the un-

conscious infant. They seem sent to the shepherds, because 

they were supposed to be more simple and religious than the

* Mr. Norton, (p. lxi. of the additional notes to his “Genuineness of the 

Gospels,”) thus disposes of these diffi culties in Luke’s narrative; “With its 

real miracles, the fi ctions of oral tradition had probably become blended; 

and the individual, by whom it was committed to writing, probably added 

what he regarded as poetical embellishments. It is not necessary to be-

lieve, for example, that Mary and Zachariah actually expressed themselves 

in the mythical language of the hymns ascribed to them; or to receive as 

literal history the whole of the account respecting the birth of John the 

Baptist, or of the different appearances of an angel, announcing himself 

as Gabriel. With our present means of judging, however, we cannot draw a 

precise line between the truth, and what has been added to the truth. But 

in regard to the main event, the miraculous conception of Jesus, it seems 

to me not diffi cult to discern in it purposes worthy of God.” But see, on the 

other hand, the opposite opinion of Mr. Stuart, American Biblical Reposi-

tory for October, 1838.

---