Jesus which is given in the first part of Plank’s _Geschichte des
Christentums_. Göttingen, 1818.
21 _Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend_, 1st ed., 1780‐1781;
2nd ed., 1785‐1786; _Werke_, ed. Suphan, vol. x.
22 A Life of Jesus which is completely dependent on the Commentaries of
Paulus is that of Greiling, superintendent at Aschersleben, _Das
Leben Jesu von Nazareth Ein religiöses Handbuch für Geist und Herz
der Freunde Jesu unter den Gebildeten._ (The Life of Jesus of
Nazareth, a religious Handbook for the Minds and Hearts of the
Friends of Jesus among the Cultured.) Halle, 1813.
23 Paulus prided himself on a very exact acquaintance with the physical
and geographical conditions of Palestine. He had a wide knowledge of
the literature of Eastern travel.—TRANSLATOR.
24 This interpretation, it ought to be remarked, seems to be implied by
the ancient reading. “Few things are needful, or one,” given in the
margin of the Revised Version.—TRANSLATOR.
25 Associations of students, at that time of a political
character.—TRANSLATOR.
26 The ground of the inference is that, according to this theory, they
did not attach much importance to the keeping of the Feasts at
Jerusalem. Dr. Schweitzer reminds us in a footnote that a certain
want of clearness is due to the fact of this work having been
compiled from lecture‐notes.
27 See Theobald Ziegler, “Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss”
(Materials for the Biography of D. F. S.), in the _Deutsche Revue_,
May, June, July 1905. The hitherto unpublished letters to Binder
throw some light on the development of Strauss during the formative
years before the publication of the Life of Jesus.
Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the
friend who delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss.
This last act of friendship exposed him to enmity and calumny of all
kinds. For the text of his short address, see the _Deutsche Revue_,
1905, p. 107.
28 _Deutsche Revue_, May 1905, p. 199.
29 _Ibid._ p. 201.
30 _Deutsche Revue_, p. 203.
31 Assistant lecturer.
32 _Ibid._, June 1905, p. 343 ff.
33 See Hase, _Leben Jesu_, 1876, p. 124. The “text‐book” referred to is
Hase’s first Life of Jesus.
34 He to whom my plaint is
Knows I shed no tear;
She to whom I say this
Feels I have no fear.
Time has come for fading,
Like a glimmering ray,
Or a sense‐evading
Strain that floats away.
May, though fainter, dimmer,
Only, clear and pure,
To the last the glimmer
And the strain endure.
The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a
physician, attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply
attached, and a very old friend to whom the verses were
addressed.—TRANSLATOR.
35 2 Kings iv. 42‐44.
36 _Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Ioannis Apostoli indole et
origine eruditorum iudiciis modeste subjecit C. Th. Bretschneider._
Leipzig, 1820.
37 Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher, _Über die Schriften des Lukas. Ein
kritischer Versuch._ (The Writings of Luke. A critical essay.) C.
Reimer, Berlin, 1817.
38 Koppe, _Marcus non epitomator Matthäi_, 1782.
39 Storr, _De Fontibus Evangeliorum Mt. et Lc._, 1794.
40 Gratz, _Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu
erklären_, 1812.
41 _V. sup._ p. 35 f. For the earlier history of the question see F. C.
Baur, _Krit. Untersuch. über die kanonischen Evangelien_, Tübingen,
1847, pp. 1‐76.
42 So called because largely based on the reference in Luke i. 1, to
the “many” who had “taken in hand to draw up a narrative
(δεήγησις).”—TRANSLATOR.
43 We take the translation of this striking image from Sanday’s “Survey
of the Synoptic Question,” _The Expositor_, 4th ser. vol. 3, p. 307.
44 For general title see above. First part: “Herr Dr. Steudel, or the
Self‐deception of the Intellectual Supernaturalism of our Time.” 182
pp. Second part: “Die Herren Eschenmayer und Menzel.” 247 pp. Third
part: “_Die evangelische Kirchenzeitung_, _die Jahrbücher für
wissenschaftliche Kritik_ und _Die theologischen Studien und
Kritiken_ in ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.” (The
attitude taken up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.)
179 pp. In the _Studien und Kritiken_ two reviews had appeared: a
critical review by Dr. Ullmann (vol. for 1836, pp. 770‐816) and that
of Müller, written from the standpoint of the “common faith” (vol.
for 1836, pp. 816‐890). In the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_ the
articles referred to are the following: _Vorwort_ (Editorial
Survey), 1836, pp. 1‐6, 9‐14, 17‐23, 25‐31, 33‐38, 41‐45; “The
Future of our Theology” (1836, pp. 281 ff.); “Thoughts suggested by
Dr. Strauss’s essay on ‘The Relation of Theological Criticism and
Speculation to the Church’ ” (1836, pp. 382 ff.); Strauss’s essay
had appeared in the _Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung_ for 1836, No. 39.
“_Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von D. F. Strauss nach
ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet_” (An Inquiry into the
Scientific Value of D. F. Strauss’s Critical Study of the Life of
Jesus.) By Prof. Dr. Harless. Erlangen, 1836.
45 “Everything turns to the advantage of the elect, even to the
obscurities of scripture, for they treat them with reverence because
of its perspicuities; everything turns to the disadvantage of the
reprobate, even to the perspicuities of scripture, for they
blaspheme them because they cannot understand its obscurities.” For
the title of Harless’s essay, see end of previous note.
46 _Das Leben‐Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. D. F. Strauss. Geprüft
für Theologen und Nicht‐Theologen_, von Wilhelm Hoffmann. 1836.
(Strauss’s Critical Study of the Life of Jesus examined for the
Benefit of Theologians and non‐Theologians.)
47 _Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in
Mythen aufzulösen._ (Defence of the Life of Jesus against the latest
attempt to resolve it into myth.) By Joh. Ernst Osiander, Professor
at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn.
48 _Über das Leben‐Jesu von Strauss_, von Franz Baader, 1836. Here may
be mentioned also the lectures which Krabbe (subsequently Professor
at Rostock) delivered against Strauss: _Vorlesungen über das Leben‐
Jesu für Theologen und Nicht‐Theologen_ (Lectures on the Life of
Jesus for Theologians and non‐Theologians), Hamburg, 1839. They are
more tolerable to non‐theologians than to theologians. The author at
a later period distinguished himself by the fanatical zeal with
which he urged on the deposition of his colleague, Michael
Baumgarten, whose _Geschichte Jesu_, published in 1859, though fully
accepting the miracles, was weighed in the balance by Krabbe and
found light‐weight by the Rostock standard.
49 For the title, see head of chapter. Tholuck was born in 1799 at
Breslau, and became in 1826 Professor at Halle, where he worked
until his death in 1877. With the possible exception of Neander, he
was the most distinguished representative of the mediating theology.
His piety was deep and his learning was wide, but his judgment went
astray in the effort to steer his freight of pietism safely between
the rocks of rationalism and the shoals of orthodoxy.
50 _Stud. u. Krit._, 1836, p. 777. In his “Open letter to Dr. Ullmann,”
Strauss examines this suggestion in a serious and dignified fashion,
and shows that nothing would be gained by such
expedients.—_Streitschriften_, 3rd pt., p. 129 ff.
51 _Das Leben Jesu‐Christi._ Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was
born in 1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being
David Mendel. He was baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813
was appointed to a professorship in Berlin, where he displayed a
many‐sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. He died in
1850. The best‐known of his writings is the _Geschichte der
Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel_
(History of the Propagation and Administration of the Christian
Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832‐1833, of which a reprint
appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep piety,
but also of great solidity of character.
Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment
upon Neander’s work: “A book such as in these circumstances
Neander’s Life of Jesus was bound to be calls forth our sympathy;
the author himself acknowledges in his preface that it bears upon it
only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain,
and distress in which it was produced.”
Of the innumerable “positive” Lives of Jesus which appeared about
the end of the ’thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2
vols., 1837‐1839). Among the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating
theology may be mentioned that of Theodore Pressel of Tübingen,
which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.).
It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention the _Leben des
Herrn Jesu Christi_ by Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856),
which reflects the ideas of von Hofmann.
52 For title see head of chapter.
53 _Aphorismen zur Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes._ Grimma,
1838.
54 From the _Xame Xenien_, p. 259 of Goethe’s Works, ed. Hempel.
55 _Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche. Zur Verständigung über die
Straussische Angelegenheit._ (A contribution to the adjustment of
opinion regarding the Strauss affair.) By Daniel Schenkel,
Licentiate in Theology and Privat‐Docent of the University of Basle,
with a dedicatory letter to Herr Dr. Lücke, Konsistorialrat. Basle,
1839.
56 _Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche. Eine Stimme aus
Norddeutschland. Mit einer Vorrede von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette._ (A
voice from North Germany. With an introduction by Dr. W. M. L. de
Wette.) Basle, 1839.
57 _Über theologische Lehrfreiheit und Lehrerwahl für Hochschulen._
Zurich, 1839.
58 For full title see head of chapter. Reference may also be made to
the same author’s _Fortbildung des Christentums zur Weltreligion_.
(Development of Christianity into a World‐religion.) Leipzig,
1833‐1835. 4 vols. Ammon was born in 1766 at Bayreuth; became
Professor of theology at Erlangen in 1790; was Professor in
Göttingen from 1794 to 1804, and, after being back in Erlangen in
the meantime, became in 1813 Senior Court Chaplain and
“Oberkonsistorialrat” at Dresden, where he died in 1850. He was the
most distinguished representative of historico‐critical rationalism.
59 He is at one with Strauss in rejecting the explanation of this
miracle on the analogy of an expedited natural process, to which
Hase had pointed, and which was first suggested by Augustine in
_Tract viii. in Ioann._: “That Christ changed water into wine is
nothing wonderful to those who consider the works of God. What was
there done in the water‐pots, God does yearly in the vine.”
[Augustine’s words are: Miraculum quidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus
fecit (_i.e._ that He who did it was God). Ipse enim fecit vinum
illo die ... in sex hydriis, qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.]
Nevertheless the poorest naturalistic explanation is at least better
than the resignation of Lücke, who is content to wait “until it
please God through the further progress of Christian thought and
life to bring about the solution of this riddle in its natural and
historical aspects.” Lücke, _Johannes‐Kommentar_, p. 474 ff.
60 Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born in 1802 at Fröndenberg in the
“county” (_Grafschaft_) of Mark, became Professor of Theology in
Berlin in 1826, and died there in 1869. He founded the _Evangelische
Kirchenzeitung_ in 1827.
61 _Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss’ historische Bearbeitung des
Lebens Jesu._
62 _Dr. Strauss’ Leben‐Jesu aus dem Standpunkt des Catholicismus
betrachtet._
63 Johann Leonhard Hug was born in 1765 at Constance, and had been
since 1791 Professor of New Testament Theology at Freiburg, where he
died in 1846. He had a wide knowledge of his own department of
theology, and his Introduction to the New Testament Writings won him
some reputation among Protestant theologians also.
64 Among the Catholic “Leben‐Jesu,” of which the authors found their
incentive in the desire to oppose Strauss, the first place belongs
to that of Kuhn of Tübingen. Unfortunately only the first volume
appeared (1838, 488 pp.). Here there is a serious and scholarly
attempt to grapple with the problems raised by Strauss. Of less
importance is the work of the same title in seven volumes, by the
Munich Priest and Professor of History, Nepomuk Sepp (1843‐1846; 2nd
ed. 1853‐1862).
65 _Über das Leben‐Jesu von Doctor Strauss._ By Edgar Quinet.
Translated from the French by Georg Kleine. Published by J. Erdmann
and C. C. Müller, 1839. In 1840 Strauss’s book was translated into
French by M. Littré. It failed, however, to exercise any influence
upon French theology or literature. Strauss is one of those German
thinkers who always remain foreign and unintelligible to the French
mind. Could Renan have written his Life of Jesus as he did if he had
had even a partial understanding of Strauss?
66 Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld.
Her parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the
Augustinian nuns of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the
dissolution of the convent, she lived in a single room in Dülmen
itself. The “stigmata” showed themselves first in 1812. She died on
the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood
since 1819. _Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi_ (The
Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano
himself in 1834. The _Life of Jesus_ was published on the basis of
notes left by him—he died in 1842—in three volumes, 1858‐1860, at
Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of Limberg.
First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first
year after the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May
1, 1821, and October 1, 1822.
Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the
Baptism in Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem.
Communicated between October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823.
Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to
the Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21,
1823, and January 8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821.
Both works have been frequently reissued, the “Bitter Sufferings” as
late as 1894.
67 _Auszüge aus der Schrift __“__Das Leben Luthers kritisch
bearbeitet.__”_ (Extracts from a work entitled “A Critical Study of
the Life of Luther.”) By Dr. Casuar (“Cassowary”; Strauss =
Ostrich). Mexico, 1836. Edited by Julius Ferdinand Wurm.
68 _Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft._ (A Critical Examination of
the Life of Napoleon.) From the English, with some pertinent
applications to Strauss’s Life of Jesus, 1836. [The English original
referred to seems to have been Whateley’s _Historic Doubts relative
to Napoleon Bonaparte_, published in 1819, and primarily directed
against Hume’s _Essay on Miracles_.—TRANSLATOR.]
69 _La Vie de Strauss. Écrite en l’an 1839._ Paris, 1839.
70 Ch. G. Wilke, _Tradition und Mythe_. A contribution to the
historical criticism of the Gospels in general, and in particular to
the appreciation of the treatment of myth and idealism in Strauss’s
“Life of Jesus.” Leipzig, 1837.
Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz,
studied theology and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the
Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in 1837 in order to devote
himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become conscious
of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion
to Catholicism by publishing a work entitled “Can a Protestant go
over to the Roman Church with a good conscience?” He took the
decisive step in August 1846. Later he removed to Würzburg.
Subsequently he recast his famous _Clavis Novi Testamenti
Philologica_—which had appeared in 1840‐1841—in the form of a
lexicon for Catholic students of theology. His _Hermeneutik des
Neuen Testaments_, published in 1843‐1844, appeared in 1853 as
_Biblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen Grundsätzen_ (The Science
of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). He was
engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854.
Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to
Emanuel Marius, _Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht
auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker_ (The Personality
of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies and Mysteries of
Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick, _Mythus
und Evangelium_ (Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.
71 See p. 89 above.
72 _Streitschriften._ Drittes Heft, pp. 55‐126: _Die Jahrbücher für
wissenschaftliche Kritik_: i. _Allgemeines Verhältnis der
Hegel’schen Philosophie zur theologischen Kritik_: ii. _Hegels
Ansicht über den historischen Wert der evangelischen Geschichte_
(Hegel’s View of the Historical Value of the Gospel History); iii.
_Verschiedene Richtungen innerhalb der Hegel’schen Schule in Betreff
der Christologie_ (Various Tendencies within the Hegelian School in
regard to Christology). 1837.
73 _Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte._ (Scientific
Criticism of the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842;
3rd ed., 1868.
Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was,
first, Professor of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen,
afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as “Konsistorialrat,” but was
unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and returned in
1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888.
A characteristic example of Ebrard’s way of treating the subject is
his method of meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of
money in its jaws could not have taken the hook. “The fish might
very well,” he explains, “have thrown up the piece of money from its
belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter
opened its mouth.” Upon this Strauss remarks: “The inventor of this
argument tosses it down before us as who should say, ‘I know very
well it is bad, but it is good enough for you, at any rate so long
as the Church has livings to distribute and we Konsistorialrats have
to examine the theological candidates.’ ” Strauss, therefore,
characterises Ebrard’s Life of Jesus as “Orthodoxy restored on a
basis of impudence.” The pettifogging character of this work made a
bad impression even in Conservative quarters.
74 _Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien._ (Chronological
Synopsis of the four Gospels.) By Karl Georg Wieseler. Hamburg,
1843. Wieseler was born in 1813 at Altencelle (Hanover), and was
Professor successively at Göttingen, Kiel, and Greifswald. He died
in 1883.
75 Johann Peter Lange, Pastor in Duisburg, afterwards Professor at
Zurich in place of Strauss. _Das Leben Jesu._ 5 vols., 1844‐1847.
76 Georg Heinrich August Ewald, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_.
(History of the People of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843‐1859; 3rd
ed., 1864‐1870. Fifth vol., _Geschichte Christus’ und seiner Zeit_.
(History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857.
Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed
Professor of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the
repeal of the fundamental law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was
removed from his office and went to Tübingen, first as Professor of
philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the theological faculty. In
1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused to take the
oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily
retired, and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion,
was also deprived of the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose
him as its representative in the North German and in the German
Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph opposition, in the middle
of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His contributions
to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old
Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is
worthless, in spite of the Old Testament and Oriental learning with
which it was furnished forth. He lays great stress upon making the
genitive of “Christus” not “Christi,” but, according to German
inflection, “Christus’.”
77 Ammon, _Johannem evangelii auctorem ab editore huius libri fuisse
diversum_, Erlangen, 1811.
78 No value whatever can be ascribed to the Life of Jesus by Werner
Hahn, Berlin, 1844, 196 pp. The “didactic presentation of the
history” which the author offers is not designed to meet the demands
of historical criticism. He finds in the Gospels no bare history,
but, above all, the inculcation of the principle of love. He casts
to the winds all attempt to draw the portrait of Jesus as a true
historian, being only concerned with its inner truth and “idealises
artistically and scientifically” the actual course of the outward
life of Jesus. “It is never the business of a history,” he explains,
“to relate only the bare truth. It belongs to a mere planless and
aimless chronicle to relate everything that happened in such a way
that its words are a mere slavish reflection of the outward course
of events.”
79 Hase, _Geschichte Jesu_, 1876, p. 128.
80 _Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums._
Leipzig, 1855‐1862.
81 At the end of his preface he makes the striking remark: “I confess I
cannot conceive of any possible way by which Christianity can take
on a form which will make it once more the truth for our time,
without having recourse to the aid of philosophy; and I rejoice to
believe that this opinion is shared by many of the ablest and most
respected of present‐day theologians.”
82 Vol. ii. pp. 438‐543. _Philosophische Schlussbetrachtung über die
religiöse Bedeutung der Persönlichkeit Christi und der evangelischen
Überlieferung._ (Concluding Philosophical Estimate of the
Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.)
83 Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the
Erzgebirge. _Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch‐kritische
Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses der drei ersten
Evangelien._ (The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical
Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The
subsequent course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as
follows:—
In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos
Aletheias, _Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr
Verhältnis zu einander_. (The Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors,
and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, 440 pp. The
author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and
thinks that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to
detecting and weeding out the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke
is in his opinion a party‐writing, biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul
had a share in its preparation, and this is what Paul alludes to
when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of “his”
Gospel. His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.‐iii.,
vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and xxiv. Mark consists of
extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the other three.
The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work,
_Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien_. (A
Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622
pp. According to him Mark is based on Matthew and Luke. At the same
time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth Gospel with the
Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the
refutation of its historical character is carried into detail.
The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his
work _Die Evangelien_. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp.