Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

270

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

271

artifi cial Pharisees. Similar objections may be made to the 

story of the magi, who, it is presupposed, knew beforehand, as 

astrologers, that a king of the Jews was to be born. A miracu-

lous star guides them; but a star does not change its position 

relatively to earthly places, and a meteor does not appear so 

long as this guide seems to have done. The conduct of Herod 

is not consistent with his shrewdness, for he sends no offi cer 

with the magi to seize the new-born Messiah. The story of the 

massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem is not mentioned by 

any ancient author; except Macrobius, a writer of the fourth 

century, and he confounds it with Herod’s murder of his son 

Antipater. The Rabbins, who never spare this tyrant, do not 

mention it. True it was but a drop in Herod’s sea of guilt, but 

it is so peculiarly horrible and revolting, that they would not 

pass over it. In this short passage there are four miraculous 

dreams and a miraculous star, not to mention the misinter-

pretation of the Old Testament. (Matt ii. 23)

But the whole story is mythical, and is derived from ideas 

and opinions commonly held at the time. The ancients be-

lieved a heavenly body sometimes appeared on great occa-

sions; for example, a comet, at the birth of Mithridates, and 

at the death of Julius Cæsar. The Rabbins assert a star ap-

peared at the birth of Abraham. It was their opinion that a star 

would appear in the East, and remain visible for a long time, 

at the period of the Messiah’s birth. Balaam also had predicted 

that a star should come out of Jacob.  In ancient times, it was 

supposed stars guided men, for example, Æneas, Thrasybu-

lus, and Timoleon; and the Jews fancied that a star conducted 

Abraham to Mount Moriah. Isaiah had foretold, that in the 

days of the Messiah, men should come from distant lands to 

worship, bringing gold and incense. Again, many great charac-

ters of antiquity had escaped from imminent peril for example, 

Cyrus, Romulus, Augustus, and Moses, in early life. Abraham, 

Jacob, and Moses had saved their lives at a later age, by fl ight. 

All these ideas and reminiscences, therefore, appear in the two 

narratives, which are different variations of the same theme, 

though they have no direct infl uence, one upon the other. Mat-

thew passes in silence over the entire period, from the return 

from Egypt to the baptism of Jesus, and Luke mentions but a 

single circumstance of his early life, namely, his conversation, 

when twelve years old, with the Doctors. But this event cannot 

be historical; for it is not probable he would, at that age, be ad-

mitted to a seat in the council of the Rabbis. His reply to his 

parents would not have been misunderstood, if the previous 

events had taken place as they are related. The whole story, 

Mr. Strauss contends, is a myth, conceived to suit the opin-

ion, that great men are remarkable in their childhood. Thus, 

in the Old Testament, Samuel is consecrated in his childhood; 

the later traditions, which Philo and Josephus follow, ascribe 

wonderful things to Moses at an early age, though the Bible 

knows nothing of them. Tradition says, that Samuel prophe-

sied from his twelfth year, and that Solomon and Daniel ut-

tered wise oracles at the same age; 1 Kings, iii. 23, seq.; Su-

sannah, vs. 45, seq.

The next chapter treats of the public ministry of Jesus. We 

pass over the chronological diffi culties relating to the ministry 

of John the Baptist, which have been carefully collected by Mr. 

Strauss, and come to his connexion with Jesus. The baptism 

of John seems based chiefl y on some fi gurative expressions of 

the Old Testament, according to which God would wash away 

the sins of his unregenerate people, before the Messiah came. 

These passages could easily be combined so as to make it ap-

pear that baptism, as the symbol of repentance, must precede 

the Messiah’s coming.

Luke informs us that John was a kinsman of Jesus, and that 

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

272

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

273

their respective mothers were acquainted with the sublime des-

tiny of their children, even before the latter were born. Matthew 

knows nothing of this, but ascribes to John, at the baptism of 

Jesus, expressions, which imply a previous acquaintance with 

him; for otherwise he would not refuse to baptize Jesus, on 

the ground of his own unworthiness to baptize a being so far 

above him. These two gospels, then, agree in presupposing the 

acquaintance of John and Jesus. But the fourth Gospel makes 

John distinctly deny the fact. (i. 31–33.) The appearance of the 

sign fi rst assures him of the appearance of Jesus.

All the Gospels agree that John calls himself a forerunner 

of the Messiah, and that he was convinced Jesus was that Mes-

siah. But Matthew and Luke relate, that after his imprison-

ment, John sent two of his disciples to James, to ascertain the 

fact. Now if he was convinced by the sign at the baptism, he 

ought still more to have been convinced by the miracles of Je-

sus, that he was the Messiah. He could not have sent his disci-

ples to Jesus, in order to strengthen their faith, for he did not 

know Jesus would work wonders in their presence, nor would 

he compromise his own assertion, that Jesus was the Messiah; 

and yet if he himself believed it, he would not urge his supe-

rior to declare himself immediately, but would leave him to 

decide for himself.

The fourth Gospel contains the most defi nite expressions 

respecting the Messiahship of Jesus, and puts them in John’s 

mouth. But did the Baptist consider him an expiatory suf-

ferer? Did he ascribe to him an antemundane, celestial exis-

tence, as the Evangelist has done? We fi nd no proofs of it, ex-

cept in this fourth Gospel. Now it is not probable the Baptist 

had this conception of the offi ce and nature of Jesus; nor is it 

probable, that he made the reply to his disciples, which this 

evangelist ascribes to him, (iii. 27–36,) where he confesses 

that he, (John,) is From beneath, but Jesus, From above, the 

One Sent by God, the Son of God, Speaking God’s words, and 

Born of God. He must increase, and I decrease. It is probable 

that the evangelist put these words into John’s mouth, but not 

that the Baptist ever uttered them; for if he had so deep an in-

sight into the nature of the kingdom of God, and the character 

and offi ce of the Messiah, and believed Jesus to be that Mes-

siah, the latter would never have said that men so rude in their 

conceptions, as the humblest of his disciples, were superior 

to John the Baptist; for Peter, the very greatest of these dis-

ciples, never attained the lofty conception that Jesus was the 

Son of God, the “Lamb, who taketh away the sin of the world.” 

Besides, the character of John renders it incredible he would 

place himself at the feet of Jesus, the very opposite of him-

self in all respects. This man of the desert, rough and austere, 

could not become a pattern of the profoundest Christian res-

ignation. A man on a humbler stand-point, (like that of John,) 

cannot comprehend the man on a superior stand-point, (like 

that of Jesus). If this, which is related of John were true, “It 

would be the only instance on record of a man belonging to the 

history of the whole world, voluntarily, and in such good hu-

mor, giving up the reins of the affairs he had so long directed 

to a man who succeeded him, only to cast him into the shade, 

and render his mission unnecessary.” The fourth Gospel, then, 

would make the Baptist unlike the Baptist of the Synoptics and 

Josephus. The statement, in John i. 29–35, is derived in part 

from fancy, and partly from an embellishment of the narrative 

in the Synoptics.

Now the origin of the narratives relating to the Baptist, Mr. 

Strauss contends, is very easily explained. Paul related the his-

torical fact, that John spoke in the name of one to come, and 

added, Jesus was that one. Afterwards, men spoke as if John 

had a personal acquaintance with Jesus. This view, though not 

supported by facts, pleased the early Christians, who were glad 

to have the Baptist’s authority on their side. But there seems 

no reason for believing there ever was such a recognition of Je-

---