Straussâ•Žs Life of Jesus

THEODORE

 

PARKER

278

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

279

siah had a strong infl uence on him even after his baptism. The 

merely natural view is absurd. Some call it a parable, designed 

to show, that no miracle is to be wrought for the man’s self; 

hope of extraordinary divine aid should not lead to rash un-

dertakings; and an alliance with the wicked must never be 

made even to obtain the greatest good. But if this is so, why 

does it not wear the form of a parable? It is easy to explain it 

as a myth. The Messiah was regarded as the concentration of 

all that is good, and the devil of all evil. He opposes Jesus, but 

can at farthest only produce momentary bad thoughts, not bad 

resolutions. Many passages in Jewish writings indicate a com-

mon belief, that the Messiah would be tempted by the devil, as 

they say Abraham had been before. If Jesus was the Messiah, 

he must encounter this temptation, which, like that of Hercu-

les, was very suitably placed just at his entrance upon active 

life. The scene of the temptation is well chosen, for the wilder-

ness was not only the dwelling-place of Azazel, (Levit. xvi. 9, 

10,) Asmodeus, (Tobit, viii. 3,) and the expelled demons; but 

it was the place where the whole nation, the collective son of 

God, was tempted forty years; and there is a strong analogy be-

tween their temptations and that of Jesus. The story was grad-

ually formed out of these Jewish notions, without the slightest 

intention to deceive.

There is a striking discrepancy, Mr. Strauss affi rms,  be-

tween the Synoptics and John in respect to many parts of 

Christ’s ministry. The former represent him to have spent the 

greater part of his life in Galilee; while the latter places him 

in Jerusalem and Judea. From them we should suppose he 

spent all his life in Galilee and the Peræa, before his last visit 

to Jerusalem, while John relates four previous journeys to that 

place, and a visit to Bethany. If John is in the right, the Synop-

tics were ignorant of an essential part of Christ’s ministry; but 

if the latter are in the right, then he has invented a great part 

of the history, or at least transferred it to a wrong place.

We pass over the chronological and many other diffi cul-

ties. The Synoptics and John disagree in respect to the as-

sumption of the offi ce and title of the Messiah. According to 

John, Jesus confessed early, that he was the Messiah, and the 

disciples remained faithful to the conviction, that he spoke 

the truth, (i. 42, 46, 50. ) To follow the Synoptics, he did not 

take this title until a late period of his life; he supposes a spe-

cial revelation had announced the fact to Peter, (Matthew xvi. 

17,) and charges the apostle to tell no man of it. Two views 

may be taken of the case. Jesus was a follower of John the 

Baptist, and after his teacher was cast into prison he preached 

repentance, and the approach of the Messiah, and concluded 

he was himself that Messiah. This view would account for 

the fact, that he was disturbed when called by this name, and 

therefore forbid his disciples to speak of him in that relation. 

But since these prohibitions are doubtful, and if real, they 

may be accounted for, without supposing Jesus was not thor-

oughly convinced of his Messiahship, for it cannot be sup-

posed that he, who made such a revolution in the world, as 

no other man has ever done, ever faltered in the midst of his 

course, in his conviction that he was the Messiah. Since, then, 

he must have had a clear consciousness of his calling, we con-

clude that he was convinced of his Messiahship, from the time 

of his fi rst appearance in that relation, but was somewhat re-

served in expressions of this conviction, because he preferred 

his disciples should gradually learn the truth from the silent 

testimony of his life and works.

The Synoptics, says Mr. Strauss, never speak of the preëx-

istence of Jesus, while John often mentions it. Now the preëx-

istence  of the Messiah was an article of faith with the Jews, 

soon after Christ, and it is probable they believed it before his 

time. But it must remain doubtful whether Jesus entertained 

this idea, or whether John has ascribed it to him without any 

authority.

---

THEODORE

 

PARKER

280

STRAUSS

’

S

 

LIFE

 

OF

 

JESUS

281

Mr. Strauss considers the story of the woman of Samaria 

an unhistorical myth. The whole scene has a legendary and 

poetic coloring. The position at the well is the “idyllic local-

ity of the old Hebrew stories.” The scene is the same as in the 

stories of Eliezer, Jacob, and Moses, all of whom meet women 

at a well. In this case, the woman, weak and good-humored, 

who had had fi ve husbands, but then had none, is a symbol of 

the Samaritan people, who had forsaken Jehovah, &c. &c. This 

story, then, is only a poetic account of the ministry of’ Jesus 

among the Samaritans, which itself is not a matter of history, 

but is only a “legendary prelude of the extension of Christian-

ity” among that people after Christ’s death.

But we must press on with more rapid wheels. The calling of 

the apostles presents numerous diffi culties, for there are great 

discrepancies between the accounts of John and the Synoptics. 

It is not probable Jesus understood the character of men at fi rst 

glance of their persons, (John i. 46, seq. though the Jews ex-

pected the Messiah, odorando judicare, as Schottgen has it;) 

nor is it probable the disciples would immediately forsake all 

and follow him. These stories are mythical, and evident imita-

tions of the legendary history of Elijah and his followers. As El-

isha left his oxen and ran after Elijah, ( 1 Kings, xix. 19, seq. ) 

so the disciples presently left their nets and followed Jesus. Eli-

sha received permission to go and take leave of his parents, but 

now the call of the Messiah is so urgent, that he rejects a young 

man who made the same request, (Luke ix. 60, seq.) and will 

not suffer a convert even to go and bury his father. The histor-

ical fact may be, that some of his disciples were fi shermen, but 

they must have come gradually into their connexion with Jesus.

John does not mention that the twelve disciples were sent 

on a mission; and the Synoptics relate nothing of their bap-

tizing converts during their teacher’s life. It is probable Jesus 

had a body of twelve disciples; but Luke’s statement, that he 

had also a larger circle of seventy disciples, is not confi rmed 

by any other evangelist, by the book of Acts, nor by any Epis-

tle. It is evidently formed in imitation of the story of seventy 

elders in the Pentateuch. The accounts of Peter’s fi shing expe-

ditions; and Christ’s miraculous draught of fi shes, like that of 

Pythagoras, are self-contradictory, and all mythical.

There is a great difference between Christ’s discourses in 

John, and the Synoptics; they have but few expressions in 

common; even their internal character is entirely different. 

The latter differ among themselves in this respect; Matthew 

gives large masses of discourse, Luke short discourses on dif-

ferent occasions, and Mark offers but a meagre report of his 

sayings. Matthew’s report of the sermon on the mount dif-

fers very widely from that of Luke; many of the expressions 

in Matthew’s report are obviously misplaced; for example, Je-

sus could not, at the commencement of his ministry, have de-

clared that he came to fulfi l the law and the prophets, for he 

had not declared himself the Messiah, of whom alone this was 

expected. By comparing all the accounts together, we see, says 

Mr. Strauss, that “ the granulary discourses of Jesus have not 

been dissolved and lost in the stream of oral tradition; but they 

have, not rarely, been loosened from their natural connexion, 

washed away from their original position, and like bowlders 

rolled to places where they do not properly belong. By this 

comparison, we fi nd that Matthew has not always restored the 

fragments to their original connexion; but yet, like a skilful 

collector, for the most part, has made an intelligible arrange-

ment, joining like with like; while in the two other Gospels, 

some small pieces are suffered to lie, where chance has thrown 

them, in the chasms between large masses of discourse, and 

Luke has sometimes given himself the pains to arrange them 

artifi cially, but has not been able to restore the natural con-

nexion.” Vol. I. p. 63.

---