The Quest of the Historical Jesus / A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede

n-Jesu und zur Charakteristik der gegenw?rtigen Theologie. (Replies to criticisms of m

erte Auflage (3rd revised e

eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss. (The Credibility of the Gospel His

Das Leben Jesu-Chr

eziehung auf die Verbreitung desselben zu beachtende Verfahren. (Dr. Neander's report, drawn up at the request of t

earbeitet von D. Fr. Strauss. (Report on D. Fr. Strauss

besondere zur Würdigung des mythischen Idealismus im Leben-Jesu von Strauss. (Tradition and Myth. A Contribution to the General

evangelischen Geschichte. (Scientific Critic

einer Zeit. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855

ter Rücksicht auf die vorhandenen Quellen. (History of the Life of Je

te result. The fertilising rain brought up a crop of toad-stools. Of the forty or fifty essays on the subject which appeared

y good results from such controversy. These essays are able, and are often written with biting scorn, especially that directed against his inveterate enemy, Steudel of Tübingen, the representative of intellectual supernaturalism, and that against Eschenmayer, a pastor, also of Tübingen. To a work of the latter, "The Iscariotism of our Days"

w himself an adroit debater in this controve

him rightly-and many of them certainly wrote without having carefully studied the fourteen hundred pages of his two volumes-Strauss on his part seemed to be stricken with a kind of uncertaint

miracle and myth; the second concerned the connexion of the Christ of faith with the Jesus o

racles; the full scope of the mythological explanation as applied to the traditional records of the life of Jesus, and the extent of the historical material which Strauss is prepared to accept, is still a riddle to them. That is in som

ical theology first came to light when Strauss put it to the question, and forced it to substitute a plain yes or no for the ambiguous phrases with which this school had only too quickly accustomed itself to evade the difficulties of the problem of miracle. The mottoes with which this new school of theology adorned the works which it sent forth against the untimely troubler of their peace manifest its complete perplexity, and display the coquettish resignation with

m pro modulo suo dilatetur, non mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur." (Let the mind, so far as possi

e contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam facillime se per ipsam defendit." (O mighty power of truth, wh

e toi, ? Vérité! puisque tu supporte (sic!) leur ignorance, leurs erreurs, et leurs crimes." (Men must indeed

"Teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est." (

elf to be persuaded into reading the book by his acquaintance the Major, and he is now anxious to get rid of the doubts which it has aroused in him. When his cure has been safely accomplished, the reverend gentleman dismisses him with the following exhortation: "Now I hope that after the experience which you have had you will for the future refrain from reading books of this kind, which are not written for you,

st-powers such as we have some partial knowledge of, as, for example, those magnetic powers which have survived down to our own time, like ghosts lingering on after the coming of day." From the standpoint of this spurious rationalism he proceeds to take Strauss to task for rejecting the miracles. "Had this latest critic been able to approach the Gospel miracles without prejudice, in the Spirit of Augustine's declaration, 'dandum est deo, eum aliqu

ermacher's hands almost commands assent. In regard to the miracle at Cana he remarks: "We cannot indeed form any clear conception of an effect brought about by the introduction of a higher creative principle into the natural order, since we have no experience on which to base such a conception, but we are by no means compelled to take this extreme view as to what happened; we may quite well suppose that Christ by an immediate influence upon the water communicated to it a higher potency wh

ist from the earth took place-and indeed there is much that is obscure in regard to the earthly life of Christ after His resurrection-yet, in its plac

f Strauss's criticism, and of which a seventh edition appeared as late as 1872. The real piety of heart with which it is imbued cannot conceal the fa

hibiting the circulation, should there appear to be grounds for doing so. He presented his report on the 15th of November 1835, and, an inaccurate account of it having appeared in the Allgemeine Zeitung, subsequently published it.52 In it he censures the work as being written from a too purely rationalistic point of view, but strongly urges the Government not to suppress it by an edict. He [p

rauss's Life of Jesus deserves to be overthrown, Neander is at one with the anonymous writer of

, auch wenn

r Tag, von H

, wenn's wah

alle Zeit

and though you

all live its

and for the t

ll live and g

Strauss's conclusions. But it is clear to him that Dr. Strauss's work considered as a scientific production is more scientific than

and hails the new supernaturalism which approximates to a scientific treatment of these subjects "as a hopeful phenomenon." He rejoices in the violent opposition at Zurich which led to the cancelling of Strauss's appointment, regarding it as likely to exercise an elevating influence. A similarly lofty position is taken up by the anony

in bearing him a grudge. But the inner greatness of that man of hard exterior comes out in the fact that he put his personal feelings in the background, and when Strauss became the central figure in the battle for the purity and freedom of historical science he ignored his attacks on rationalism and came to his defence. In a very remarkable letter to the Free Canton of Zurich, on "Freedom in Theological Teaching and in the Choice of Teach

ceivable miracles can be admitted." He cannot away with the constant confusion of faith and knowledge found in [pg 105] so many writers "who swim in an ocean of ideas in which the real and the illusory are as inseparable as salt and sea-water in the actual ocean." In every natural process, he explains, we have to suppose, according to Kant, an interpenetration of natural and supernatural. For that very reason the purely supernatural does not exist for our experience. "It is no doubt certain," so he lays it down on the lines of Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft, "that every act of causation which goes forth from God must be immediate, universal, and eternal, because it is thought as an effect of His will, which is exalted above space and time and interpenetrates both of th

ting theology makes play, is to be rejected. "The cure of psychical diseases by the power of the word and of faith is the only kind of cur

d the Divine Providence "to fulfil in fact the confidently spoken promises of Jesus, and in that way to confi

feeding of the multitude is based on some occasion when there was "a bountiful display of hospitality, a generous sharing of provisions, inspired by Jesus' prayer of thanksgiving and the [pg 106] example which He set when the disciples were inclined selfishly to hold back their own supply." The story of the miracle at Cana rests on a mere misunderstanding, those who report it not having known that the wine which Jesus caused to be secretly brought forth was

sm. He decides that the reality of the death of Jesus is historically proved. But he does

nations, and his failure to rid himself of the prejudice that an actual, even if not a miraculous fact must underlie all the recorded miracles, is in itself sufficient to

e of the most gratifying phenomena in the domain of recent theological literature," and praises the author for having carried out with logical consistency the application of the mythical theory which had formerly been restricted to the Old Testament and certain parts only of the Gospel tradition. "All that

e in agreement than with the Tübingen scholar. Had he not shown with the greatest precision how the results of the Hegelian philosophy,

it still clings, and faith will cast off its elements of unbelief. That will be an inestimable advantage. Had the Time-spirit continued to make concessions, concessions would constantly have been made to it in return." Theref

tisfaction to me to have to do with the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. In dealing with it one knows where one is and what one has to expect. If Herr Hengstenberg condemns, he knows why he condemns, and even one against whom he launches his anathema must admit that the at

the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, and considers that if Strauss did not, like the latter, go so far as to suppose the apostles guilty

ermacher. Thus, Catholic scholars were almost prepared to regard Strauss as a common enemy, against whom it was possible to make common cause with Protestants. In 1837 Joseph Mack, one of the Professors of the Catholic faculty at Tübingen, published his "Report on Herr Dr. Strauss's Historical Study o

y.65 In an eloquent peroration he lays bare the danger which was menacing the Church from the nation of Strauss and Hegel. His countrymen need not think that it could be charmed away by some ingenious formula; a mighty effort of the Catholic spirit was necessary, if it was to be successfully opposed. "A new barbarian invasion was rolling up against sacred Rome. The barbarian

ne day. The "pilgrim" Clement Brentano would certainly have consented, had he been asked, to allow his note-books to be used in the sacred cause, and to have given to the world the Life of Jesus as it was revealed to him by this visionary from the end of July 1820 day by day for three years, instead of allowing this treasure to remain hidden for more than twenty years longer. He himself ascribed to these visions the most strictly historical character, and insisted on considering them not merely as reflections on what had happened, but as

an Strauss's, contains a wealth of interesting information. John at first baptized at Aenon,

complement of ten persons. Forward and aft there were covered-in spaces where all kinds of gear could be kep

d Judas had been born out of wedlock, his father being a military tribune in Damascus. As an infant he had been exposed, but had been saved, and later had been taken charge of by his uncle, a tanner at Iscariot. At

mouth was so large that it made

meal with His disciples at the house of the Canaanitish woman. This voyage took place during the war between Herod and Aretas while the disciples were making their missionary journey in Palestine. As they could not give an eyewitness report of it they were silent; no

omposition comes out too clearly, though in general a lively imagination tends to conceal this. And yet these na?ve embellishments and inventions have something rather attractive about them; one cannot handle the book without a certain reverence when one thinks amid what pains these revelations were received. If Brentano had published h

r itself. The Hegelian method had proved itself to be the logic of reality. With Strauss begins the period of the non-miraculous view of the Life of Jesus; all other views exhausted themselves in the struggle against him, and subsequently abandoned position after position without waiting to be attacked. The separation which Hengstenberg had hailed with such rejoicing was really accomplished; but in the form that supernaturalism pra

ly that the exclusion of miracle from our view of history has been universally recognised as a principle of criticism, so that miracle no longer concerns the historian either positively or negatively. Scientific theologians of the present day who desire to show their "sensibility," ask no more than that two or three little miracles may be left to them-in the stories of the childhood, perhaps, or in the narr

s of the resurrection "as pure historians" without betraying by a single word whether they themselves believe it to be possibl

the history takes a very subordinate place in the controversy. Few understood what Strauss's rea

cal science of the future, the life of Luther would also become a mere myth,67 the second tr

l'histoire de la vie de Jésus, 1838, which bears the ingenious motto ο? σεσοφισμ?νοι? μ?θοι? (not ... in cunningly devised myths, 2 Peter i. 16). He certainly did not exaggera

Gospel, putting what is tenable on a firmer basis, sifting out what is untenable, and showing up in all its nakedness the counterfeit theology of the new evangelicalism with its utter lack of understanding and sincerity." Again, "the approval which Strauss has met with, and the excitement which he has aroused, sufficiently show what an advantage rationalistic speculation possesses over t

ilosophy does violence to history, and the historic Christ only retains His significance as a mere i

mposed by a disciple of the Lord, and which are not present here. The narrative is lacking in precision, fragmentary and legendary, tradition everywhere manifest in its very form." There are discrepancies in the legends of the first and second chapters, a

o the Petrine tradition. The author of the Fourth Gospel is not an eyewitness; the κατ? (according to) only indicates the origin of the tradition; th

of the individual Gospels. "No one of the Evangelists knew the writing of any

o years later, was to work out convincingly the literary argument for the priority of Mark. But the historian is quite subordinated to the literary critic, and, when all is said, Wilke takes up no clearly de

of the Jesus of history to the ideal Christ was not justified even from the point of view of the Hegelian philosophy, arguing that the edifice which he had raised was not in harmony with the ground-plan of the Hegelian speculative system. He therefore felt it necessary, in his reply to the review in the J

ted by Marheineke and G?schel, emphasises the positive side of the master's religious philosophy, implying that in Jesus the idea of God-manhood was perfectly fulfilled and in a certain sense intelligibly realised. "If these men," Strauss explains, "appeal to Hegel and declare that he would not have recognised my book as an expression of his meaning, they say nothing which is not in accordance with my own convictions. Hegel was personally no frien

philosophy of religion is not whether what is narrated in the Gospels actually happened or not, but whether in view of the truth of certain conceptions it must necessarily have happened. And in regard to this, what I assert is that from the general system of the Hegelian philosophy it by no means necessarily follows that such an

er His death and the removal of His sensible presence. The master himself had acknowledged the existence of mythical elements in the Life of Jesus; in regard to miracle he

the assertion," concludes Strauss, "that the truth of the Gospel narrative cannot be proved, whether in whole or in part, from philosophical considerations, but that the task of inquiring into its truth must be left to historical criticism, I should like to associa

and boasted that they were safe there, though they could not suppress a secret consciousness that they only held it at the enemy's pleasure; now the enemy has appeared before it; he is using the same weapons with which he was formerly victorious; the Gospel of John is in as desperate case as formerly the Synoptists. The time has come to make a bold resolve, a decisive choice; either they must give up everything, or else they must successively re-occupy the more advanced positions which at an earlier date they had successively abandoned." It would be impossible to give a more accurate picture of the desperate position into which Hase and Schleiermacher had brought the mediating theology by their ingenious

Synoptic narrative wherever place could best be found for them. The difference between the Johannine and Synoptic representations of Jesus' method of teaching, says Neander, is only apparently irreconcilable, and he calls out in support of this assertion all the reserves of old worn-out expedients and artifices, among others

s plan to give more prominence to the discourses of Jesus in the Temple and His dialogues with the Scribes as compared to the parables and teaching given to the people. The cleansing of the Temple falls at the outset of Jesus' ministry; Jesus begins His Messianic work in Jerusalem by this action of making an end of the unseemly chaffering in the court of the Temple. The question regarding the relative authenticity of the reports is decisively settled by a comparison of the two accounts of [pg 118] the triumphal entry, because t

n "after the spirit" claim an ideal existence prior to the spatial creation without indulging any delusion, and without, on the other hand, thinking of a real existence. In this way Jesus is for Himself a Biblical idea, with

only a working-over of the authentic John, a suggestion in regard to which Ammon can claim priority, since he had made it as early as 1811,77 nine years before the appearance of Bretschneider's Probabilia. Were it not for the ing

assed without result. The mediating theology continued to hold its positions undistu

ho had put him in the same category with Berkeley, so Strauss inserts additions and retractations in the third edition of his Life of Jesus in deference to the uncritical works of Tholuck and Neander! Wilke, the only one of his critics from whom he might have learned something, he

had inclined a little less to the negative side in examining the claims of reported facts to rank as historical, and had been a little more circumspect in pointing out the factors

doubtful about his doubts regarding the genuineness and credibility of this Gospel." "Not that I

ally in the form in which it is reported in the Fourth Gospel; in transferring the cleansing of the Temple to the first period of Jesus' ministry, John may be right as against the Synoptic tradition "which has no decisive evi

Strauss to place his foot upon this shelving path was the essentially just perception that the Synoptists gave him no clearly ordere

pponents, critics, and supporters," he says in his preface, "to which I had felt it my duty to listen, had confused me in regard to the idea of my work; in my diligent comparison of various views I had lost sight of the thing itself. In this way I was led to make alterations which, when I came to consider the matter calmly,

development. In the very year in which he prepared his improved edition, Weisse, in his Evangelische Geschichte, had set up the hypothesis that Mark is the ground-document, and had thus carried criticism past the "dead-point" which Strauss had never been able to overcome. Upon Strauss, however, the new suggestion made no impression. He

f Jesus to the law, of the question regarding His particularism, of the eschatological conception, the Son of Man, and the Messiahship of Jesus, wholly failed to take effect, and it was only after long and circuitous wanderings that theology again came in sight of these problems from an equally favourable point of

g