The Life of Jesus Critically Examined

by David Friedrich Strauss

This book is a facsimile reprint and may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages.

Genres: Religion, History, Philosophy, Christianity, Nonfiction, Atheism, Biography

812 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1835

About the author

In 1808, David Friedrich Strauss was born. The German writer pioneered scholarship doubting the historicity of Jesus. Strauss became a Lutheran vicar in 1830, and studied theology under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He was appointed to the Theological Seminary at the University at Tubingen. His book Life of Jesus (1835), dissecting the New Testament as largely mythical, was published to great acclaim, but lost him his teaching post. In 1836 he left the church. In his final book, The Old Faith and the New (1872), Strauss eschewed Christianity and the concept of immortality. British freethinking novelist George Eliot translated his first book into English. D. 1874.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_St...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

http://www.nndb.com/people/178/000097...

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/str...

Reviews

[Ginger Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic that I finally got around to reading. Long but worth it (George Eliot's translation makes it quite accessible).

This book caused an uproar when it was published in 1835 -- though I'm still not sure why. Nothing that Strauss said was new. His critiques of the Bible and Christianity were similar to others that had been around for hundreds of years (some going back to the earliest centuries of the religion's founding). I suspect it was partly an issue of timing. When Strauss published, the middle class was growing in the West, which meant a larger reading public. Strauss's book became a big seller, and that clearly alarmed the authorities.

Strauss himself was labeled a heretic because of the book and was barred from church and university positions in Germany. When a university in Zurich offered him a post, the outcry was so severe that it eventually brought down the Swiss government.

The book is now somewhat outdated, but it still offers an excellent catalogue of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the New Testament. It's also historically important since it probably did more than any other work to catalyze modern New Testament study and criticism.

[Frederick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This really interesting piece of heretical gibberish is a very good study of German infidelity in the late 1700's and early 1800's. This is a good source book for almost every anti-Biblical utterance Christians have been entertaining in their churches for many decades from the belief that Moses wrote based on oral tradition he had heard to the gospels just being a later justification for a church that was already established. it is a good reference book for the reasoning of the German rationalists and atheist theologians of that era.

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's one of those instances when a very negative review reassures one that the book might not be so bad after all, and one begins to read; within a paragraph one begins to suspect it was worth the effort, and notices that the comment by a critic, quoted in a life of George Eliot, about the translation being excellent quality in every way, must be true - although when one read that, one feared coming across the infamous, over two page long, German sentences that change the whole meaning completely as one turns the page, due to a split verb.

It's not that everything is perfect - far from it. For example, he begins with what seems like an intelligent, erudite discourse on religion - he specifically uses that word, not the one that would identity his own - but as one reads, it's obvious that he's thinking of one he's familiar with, namely, his own, and those close to it, all within the perimeter of abrahmic faiths.

If and when he does refer specifically to one outside this, which he does often enough though not at the very outset, there are words used that in Western culture considered pejorative, such as heathen, pagan, pantheistic, although they are not literally so (- similarly the word grotesque, literally referring to grottoes where Europe worship of mother Goddesses were conducted, isn't pejorative literally, but has been reduced to that via church attitude and domination).

It becomes obvious, immediately at the beginning, that the author knows little about religions other than his own. For example, the author says, in the introduction -

" ... Otherwise, we might very likely find the miracles in the life of Moses, Elias, or Jesus, the Theophany and Angelophany of the Old and New Testament, just as incredible as the fables of Jupiter, Hercules, or Bacchus: presuppose the divinity or divine descent of these individuals, and their actions and fate become as credible as those of the biblical personages with the like presupposition. Yet not quite so, it may be returned. Vishnu appearing in his three first avatars as a fish, a tortoise, and a boar; Saturn devouring his children; Jupiter turning himself into a bull, a swan, etc.—these are incredibilities of quite another kind from Jehovah appearing to Abraham in a human form under the terebinth tree, or to Moses in the burning bush. ... "

On the contrary, the burning bush is not impressive as indication of a God, although not incredible enough to declare it impossible; and the peculiar insistence on virgin birth by Rome - one can quite ordinarily hear a nun declaring that "she was special , not like other women" with great scorn at all other women, not realising how fisgusting she sounds for this disdain against all women contained in the implication that one woman hapoened to be a virgin mother unlike others, and implying that all others are thereby low; this disdain isnt extended to males, one notices!

But, above all, hasn't science - specifically, evolution - proved India right, even though those that see its superiority over biblical story dont necessarily have to "have faith" in any God of India (nobody asked anyone to have such a faith!), but, after all, if there is life and existence and evolution, while one is quite free to think there's only material as dead as mud coming suddenly alive, if one chooses to wonder what is behind - as one looks behind atoms and finds quarks - it's not important that the name given in India is Vishnu, but it's impressive that India knew of evolution.

And wouldn't you think that someone so aware of science as this author, and the translator George Eliot, would realise, being aware of evolution - and not dead set against it all as the bibke belt is - that India's treasure of knowledge, despite the racist label of mythology by West, has far more a vast core of truth that the history of West Asia worshipped by abrahmic faiths?

" ... This extravagant love of the marvellous is the character of the heathen mythology. A similar accusation might indeed be brought against many parts of the Bible, such as the tales of Balaam, Joshua, and Samson; but still it is here less glaring, and does not form as in the Indian religion and in certain parts of the Grecian, the prevailing character. What however does this prove? Only that the biblical history might be true, sooner than the Indian or Grecian fables; not in the least that on this account it must be true, and can contain nothing fictitious."

Was he kidding? Or did his instinct of self preservation make him forget, temporarily, the insistence by church on virgin conception, without a human male parent, of his object of worship?

And if this was to be explained by science, it can't be assumed a never before or after occurrence, destroying the very basis of worship - since, surely, it can't be without such imposition of belief at pain of a burning at stake, that one could rationally conclude a unique supreme divinity due to a few miracles?

Why, the so called rope trick of India, so disdained by west - chiefly England - and used to brand India as something low, sounds far more miraculous than turning water into wine, even if one believes that latter - while the reports of having seen the rope trick are by the earlier English in India who reported having eye witnessed the events, and not uniquely either.

And yet, there was no report of those performing having been worshipped by anyone in India. Who's the more gullible here?

"“But the subjects of the heathen mythology are for the most part such, as to convince us beforehand that they are mere inventions: those of the Bible such as at once to establish their own reality. A Brahma, an Ormusd, a Jupiter, without doubt never existed; but there still is a God, a Christ, and there have been an Adam, a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses.” ... "

Again, a combination of racism, hubris, and ignorance. That it matches, in proportion today, the same qualities in flatearthers, or bible belt deniers of evolution, shouldn't be surprising - after all, bible belt may be related more to confederate South than to the states of German migration, but the two aren't isolated, nor were in eighteenth century or any other time ssuch qualities restricted to Germany.

Incidentally there are other mistakes in the book, but it's difficult to correct Ormusd - is it as simple as Ormud? Autocorrect allows the latter, but it's not a foolproof guide.

" ... Whether an Adam or a Noah, however, were such as they are represented, has already been doubted, and may still be doubted. Just so, on the other side, there may have been something historical about Hercules, Theseus, Achilles, and other heroes of Grecian story. Here, again, we come to the decision that the biblical history might be true sooner than the heathen mythology, but is not necessarily so. ... "

Good thinking. But then retraction -

" ... This decision however, together with the two distinctions already made, brings us to an important observation. How do the Grecian divinities approve themselves immediately to us as non-existing beings, if not because things are ascribed to them which we cannot reconcile with our idea of the divine? whilst the God of the Bible is a reality to us just in so far as he corresponds with the idea we have formed of him in our own minds. Besides the contradiction to our notion of the divine involved in the plurality of heathen gods, and the intimate description of their motives and actions, we are at once revolted to find that the gods themselves have a history; that they are born, grow up, marry, have children, work out their purposes, suffer difficulties and weariness, conquer and are conquered. It is irreconcileable with our idea of the Absolute to suppose it subjected to time and change, to [77]opposition and suffering; and therefore where we meet with a narrative in which these are attributed to a divine being, by this test we recognize it as unhistorical or mythical."

How, he asks repeatedly, and presumes reasonability is the answer; nothing of the sort, which is obvious to anyone not brought up quivering in fright before church authority. Not reasonability of one set of stories against another, its quite contrary, in fact. It's all due to a very limited theory and a fable covering up a real story, not only fed for millennia by church, but imposed fiercely, at pain of being burnt at stake of those not cowering under it, that's how.

" ... It is obvious to every one, that there is something quite different in the Old Testament declarations, that God made an alliance with Noah, and Abraham, led his people out of Egypt, gave them laws, brought them into the promised land, raised up for them judges, kings, and prophets, and punished them at last for their disobedience by exile;—from the tales concerning Jupiter, that he was born of Rhea in Crete, and hidden from his father Saturn in a cave; that afterwards he made war upon his father, freed the Uranides, and with their help and that of the lightning with which they furnished him, overcame the rebellious Titans, and at last divided the world amongst his brothers and children. ... "

That latter part sounds very like stories fashioned after astronomical observations, even though telescopes hadn't been yet invented and so satellites of planets (other than earth, but then it was the Moon, not earth, considered a planet then) were unknown, so the children part sounds invented too; yet, when when occupation of a celestial body occurs, so does that of its satellites, or most of them, at least; so it'd be interesting if they really did know about the satellites.

" ... The essential difference between the two representations is, that in the latter, the Deity himself is the subject of progression, becomes another being at the end of the process from what he was at the beginning, something being effected in himself and for his own sake: whilst in the former, change takes place only on the side of the world; God remains fixed in his own identity as the I AM, and the temporal is only a superficial reflection cast back upon his acting energy by that course of mundane events which he both originated and guides. ... "

That difference, Strauss forgets, goes with another - an assumption of the said Deity being, not only supreme, but unique, and moreover, there being nothing else; a parallel would be, for example, the whole of earth a tropical garden with the exception of a single point, say the North pole, as per the former view; while the latter has at least a few gradations along with those of earth latitudes, if not all, and other differences of topography.

And yet, that assumption of exclusion and uniqueness is just that - an assumption, not even from conception thereof but in fact from choice. Those that so proclaimed this exclusive unique one to be the only one did in fact know of other Gods, and their names as well, of not only greek, Roman and Egyptian pantheons but more - there were not only Jupiter and Ra, Apollo and Diana, but Bacchus and Moloch and many more; of which, suddenly, one was picked out - Jehovah - and proclimed not merely supreme, not merely unique, but wiping out all others as non existent, and this was imposed so strongly that inquisition is merely a reasonably seeming logical result, pretty much like holocaust was the logical result of the antisemitism taught by church for centuries.

" ... In the heathen mythology the gods have a history: in the Old Testament, God himself has none, but only his people: and if the proper meaning of mythology be the history of gods, then the Hebrew religion has no mythology."

Or perhaps there was history, but it was suppressed, after Jehovah was selected to be all-in-all, and others not only discarded but prohibited?

Here's an amusing fact - the word Jehovah isn't that far a sound from Ava, and the difference being vowels, which aren't written in Hebrew or scripts of its derivative languages, perhaps it was the primeval Mother, Eve, who was elevated to the ultimate status?

After all, fear of God (unknown in India of Indian origin) is a concept that belongs to West including West Asia (and hence only known to those of India that carry on the cultures of invaders, via heritage of ancestry or conversion), and the very word "hauwwa" in North India signifies something feared unrealistically; but "awwaa" in South India literally means mother, and neither word is of origin in any Indian language, but are obviously both from the same source and are in fact related to Eve; the different connotations signifying the differences of how the foreign faith entered the region. In North it was brutality of invasions, massacres and conversions at point of swords; in South it was traders and migrants, refugees even, including the grandsons of the prophet (whom refuge was given by king in Gujarat, who defended them at cost of his own life, before the mercenary bin kasim succeeded in his purpose; Gujarat isn't technically counted as South, but s closer in many ways to South culturally).

It would be amusing if the word Jehovah were in fact a transformation or derivative of Eve, amusing because abrahmic cultures and faiths are so highly misogynistic.

" ... Thus according to the above accepted notion of the mythus, the New Testament has more of a mythical character than the Old. ... "

There is more to the mouth character thereof - it wasn't just that such a messiah has been and is still expected in Judaism, with some characteristics clearly predicted, but also that the story of Jesus as told by church is very akin in various parts to several different, much older, stories from various parts, near or further. (When pointed out, church is quoted to have said that devil in past borrows from god of future and plants the story!)

"It is certainly difficult to conceive, how narratives which thus speak of imagination as reality can have been formed without intentional deceit, and believed without unexampled credulity; ... "

An atheist labelling it as imagination - not a particular religion and it's story, nor all others except one, but all of them, and very concept of anything not subject to physical senses or reason - reminds one of the story -(wish one could recall or source the title and authir) of the man who stumbled into a self sufficient valley in course of his travels where not only everyone else except him were blind, but had no concept of sight; and after honouring him initially, were seriously alarmed at his "delusion" as they thought it, until a decision was taken to operate on him; the story ends in a fortunate escape he managed.

But really, is there a difference of more than one step, or two different sides of the same coin, between atheism and monotheism? No. For both merely holds not only one's own assertion true and supreme, but all other possibilities beneath contempt. And yet neither can prove their assertion in any possible scientific or logical manner.

***

"If, in addition to this, we accept the statement of Luke (i. 26 and iii. 23), that Jesus, being only half a year younger than John, was about in his thirtieth year at his appearance, we must suppose that John was in his twentieth year when he began his ministry. ... "

"The result then of our critique on the chronological data Luke iii. 1, 2, comp. 23 and i. 26, is this: if Jesus, as Luke seems to understand, appeared in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the appearance of John occurred, not in the same year, but earlier; and if Jesus was in his thirtieth year when he began his ministry, the Baptist, so much his predecessor, could hardly be but six months his senior."

But the age gap confirmed as a consequence of the visit by Mary to Elizabeth scene, amounts to the years of disciplehood of Jesus to John, doesn't It?

The factor here is the gap of years between his disciplehood to John and his own beginning of rabbinic position, and those are the years that he travelled to India, it has been conjectured - apart from returning there after his resurrection - where he learned yoga, whereby the resurrection; whether this whole conjecture arose during twentieth century due to West beginning to know about yoga, or whether it was also because of the village in Kashmir that claims he lived his life out there and they have his grave, is anybody's guess; but it's also that his name and epithet are clearly deformations, respectively, of Isha and Krishna; and if he did learn yoga in India for years, that explains most of the rest, especially the resurrection.

***

"The connection and intercourse of the two families, as described by Luke, would render it impossible for John not to be early informed how solemnly Jesus had been announced as the Messiah, before and at his birth; he could not therefore say at a later period that, prior to the sign from heaven, he had not known, but only that he had not believed, the story of former wonders, one of which relates to himself.30 It being thus unavoidable to acknowledge that by the above declaration in the fourth Gospel, the Baptist is excluded, not only from a knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus, but also from a personal acquaintance with him; it has been attempted to reconcile the first chapter of Luke with this ignorance, by appealing to the distance of residence between the two families, as a preventive to the continuance of their intercourse.31 But if the journey from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea was not too formidable for the betrothed Mary, how could it be so for the two sons when ripening to maturity?"

Not only at the outset, but increasingly, a factor that comes to fore is the paucity in church variety of monotheism.

"Let it be granted that the fourth Gospel excludes an acquaintance with the [218]Messiahship only of Jesus, and that the third presupposes an acquaintance with his person only, on the part of John; still the contradiction is not removed. For in Matthew, John, when required to baptize Jesus, addresses him as if he knew him, not generally and personally alone, but specially, in his character of Messiah. It is true that the words: I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? (iii. 14), have been interpreted, in the true spirit of harmonizing, as referring to the general superior excellence of Jesus, and not to his Messiahship.33 But the right to undertake the baptism which was to prepare the way for the Messiah’s kingdom, was not to be obtained by moral superiority in general, but was conferred by a special call, such as John himself had received, and such as could belong only to a prophet, or to the Messiah and his Forerunner (John i. 19 ff.). If then John attributed to Jesus authority to baptize, he must have regarded him not merely as an excellent man, ....

[Hooper Bring]

KB cited this when responded to for saying “People should talk more about the actually interesting version of jesus who builds shit and likes boats and fishing. The Christian version of jesus is fucking boring.”

[Danny Warwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

When reading Schweitzer, life seems dim. But when reading Strauss, he finds that he has simply lost all hope. Lol.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE MOST MONUMENTAL OF ALL 19TH CENTURY "LIVES OF JESUS"

David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) was a German theologian and writer. This 1835 book (revised three times) was revolutionary, because it subjected the four gospels to a minutely-detailed critical examination, and unflinchingly pointed out the various inconsistencies between them. It remains the most detailed such examination of the gospels to this day. Strauss also wrote 'The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History' and 'The Old Faith and the New.' For more information about Strauss, you might read 'David Friedrich Strauss & His Theology,' 'David Friedrich Strauss in His Life and Writings,' and 'David Friedrich Strauss and His Critics: The Life of Jesus Debate in Early Nineteenth-Century German Journals.' [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 812-page paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to the first edition, “It appeared to the author of the work… that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated systems of supernaturalism and rationalism… The new point of view… is the mythical. This theory … has long been applied to particular parts of that history, and is here only extended to its entire tenor. It is not by any means meant that the whole history of Jesus is to be represented as mythical, but only that every part of it is to be subjected to a critical examination, to ascertain whether it have not some admixture of the mythical.” (Pg. li) Later, he suggests, “if the mythical view be once admitted, the innumerable, and never otherwise to be harmonized, discrepancies and chronological contradictions in the gospel histories disappear, as it were, at one stroke.” (§8, pg. 56-57)

He argues about interpreting the gospel accounts, “It may here be asked: is it to be regarded as a contradiction if one account is wholly silent respecting a circumstance mentioned by another?... it is certainly to be accounted of moment when, at the same time … had the author known the circumstance he could not have failed to mention it, and also that he must have known that it had actually occurred.” (§16, pg. 89)

He explains, “The following examples will serve to illustrate the mode of deciding in such cases. According to the narrative [Lk 1:39-56], as Mary entered the house and saluted her cousin Elizabeth, who was then pregnant, the babe leaped in her womb… and she immediately addressed Mary as the mother of the Messiah. This account bears indubitable marks of an unhistorical character. Yet, it is not, in itself, impossible that Mary should have paid a visit to her cousin, during which everything went on quite naturally… Hence is derived the following rule. When not merely the particular nature and manner of an occurrence is critically suspicious, its external circumstance represented as miraculous and the like; but where likewise the essential substance and groundwork is either inconceivable in itself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic idea of the Jews of that age, then not the particular alleged course and mode of the transaction only, but the entire occurrence must be regarded as unhistorical.” (§16, pg. 91)

Of the virgin birth, he notes, “no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout the four Gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in Matthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joseph simply as the father of Jesus [Lk 2:41, and the Evangelist speak of both as his parents [Lk 2:41]… but all his contemporaries in general… regarded him as a son of Joseph… Just as little as in the Gospels, is anything in confirmation of the view of the supernatural conception of Jesus, to be found in the remaining New Testament writings. For when the Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus as ‘born of a woman’ [Gal 4:4], this expression is not to be understood as an exclusion of paternal participation; since the addition ‘made under the law’… clearly shows that he would here indicate … human nature with all its conditions.” (§26, pg. 132)

Of the census of Quirinius in Luke 2, he observes, “[Luke’s] representation of the manner in which the census was made is subject to objection… it is said, the taxing took Joseph to Bethlehem… to the place whence his family had originally sprung… The Romans, on the contrary, were in the habit of taking the census at the residences, and at the principal cities in the district… it would have been directly contrary to their design, had they removed individuals … to a great distance, where the amount of their property was not known, and their statement concerning it could not be checked…. Thus we have … [no] explanation of the occasion which led to his being born precisely at Bethlehem… we have absolutely no guarantee that Bethlehem was his birth-place.” (§32, pg. 155-156) Later, he adds, “if Jesus were really born in Bethlehem… it is incomprehensible … that even his own adherents should always call him the Nazarene, instead of opposing this epithet, pronounced by his opponents… the honorable title of the Bethlehemite.” (§39, pg. 189)

Of the Slaughter of the Innocents [Mt 2], he says, “if it be once admitted, that God interposed supernaturally to blind the mind of Herod and to suggest to the magi that they should not return to Jerusalem, we are constrained to ask, why did not God in the first instance inspire the magi to shun Jerusalem and proceed directly to Bethlehem… and thus the disastrous sequel perhaps have been altogether avoided?” (§34, pg. 165)

He points out, “There is a … serious discrepancy, relative to the declamations of Jesus concerning his Messiahship. According to John he sanctions the homage which Nathanael renders to him as the Son of God and King of Israel, in the very commencement of his public career, and immediately proceeds to speak of himself under the messianic title, Son of Man [Jn 1:49-51]. To the Samaritans [Jn 4:26, 39]… and to the Jews [5:46]… he makes himself known as the Messiah predicted by Moses. According to the synoptical writers, on the contrary, he prohibits… the dissemination of the doctrine of his Messiahship, beyond the circle of his adherents…” (§62, pg. 285)

Of whether Jesus was to include the Gentiles, he notes [about Mt 28:19/Mk 16:15/Lk 24:47], “if Jesus had given so explicit a command … what need was there of a vision to encourage Peter to its fulfillment? Or, supposing the vision to be a legendary investiture of the natural deliberations of the disciples, why did they go about in search of the reflection, that all men ought to be baptized… if they could have appealed to an express injunction of Jesus?... if Jesus himself gave this command, the disciples cannot have been led to the admission of the Gentiles by the means narrated in Acts 10-11; if, on the other hand, that narrative is authentic, the alleged command of Jesus cannot be historical. Our canon decides for the latter proposition.” (§68, pg, 303)

He points out, “It is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this Nicodemus… It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if he had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition, without leaving a single trace, that one is induced in inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation: namely, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have been fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth gospel without having really subsisted.” (§80, pg. 365-366)

He also observes that in the fourth gospel, “the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which the writer blends the person of Jesus with his own and makes the former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.” (§80, pg. 371) He adds, “the fourth Evangelist … presents his own thoughts in the form of discourses delivered by Jesus; but he often fails lamentably in that particular, when he has to deal with the real traditional sayings of Jesus… when he has the same problem before him as the synoptists, he is as unfortunate in its solution as they… for his narrative is not homogeneous with the common evangelical tradition, and presented few places where a genuine traditional relic could be inserted.” (§82, pg. 380-381) He concludes, “We therefore hold it to be established, that the discourses of Jesus in John’s gospel are mainly free compositions of the Evangelist; but … he has culled several sayings pf Jesus from an authentic tradition, and hence we do not extend this proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synoptical gospels.” (§83, pg. 386)

He says, “Jesus would appear to have here [Mk 8:12] repudiated the working of miracles in general. This… accords fully with the fact that in the preaching and epistles of the apostles, a couple of general notices excepted (Acts 2:22, 10:38)… the miracles of Jesus appear to be unknown, and everything is built on his resurrection… This then is the question: Ought we, on account of the evangelical narratives of miracles, to explain away that expression of Jesus, or doubt its authenticity; or ought we not, rather, on the strength of that declaration, and the silence of the apostolic writings, to become distrustful of the numerous histories of miracles in the gospels?” (§91, 414-415) But he acknowledges, “in the nature of things there is nothing to prevent the admission, that Jesus cured many persons who suffered from supposed demoniacal insanity or nervous disorder, in a psychical manner, by the ascendency of his manner and words… which in his age must have seemed miracles… We will not here put this alternative otherwise than as a question.” (§93, pg. 436)

He states, “the cure of the blind man in John [Jn 9] is accompanied by very remarkable conversations, first, of Jesus with the disciples, than, of the cured man with the magistrates… such as there is no trace in the synoptical cures of the blind… Jesus performed this miracle in Jerusalem, in the circle of his disciples; it made a great sensation in the city, and was highly offensive to the magistracy, hence the affair must have been known if it had really occurred; and as we do not find it in the common evangelical tradition, the suspicion arises that it perhaps never did occur.” (§95, pg. 451) Later, he concludes, “We … distinctly declare that we regard the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, not only as in the highest degree improbable in itself, but also destitute of external evidence; and this whole chapter… as an indication of the unauthenticity of the fourth gospel.” (§100, pg. 494)

He acknowledges, “Thus Jesus might by psychological reflection come to the conclusion that such a catastrophe [his death] would be favorable to the spiritual development of his disciples, and that it was indispensable for the spiritualizing of their messianic ideas… even to the idea that his messianic death would have an expiatory efficacy. Still, what the synoptists make Jesus say of his death, as a sin offering, might especially appear to belong rather to the system which was developed after the death of Jesus…” (§112, pg. 573) He concludes, “Thus the foreknowledge, as well as the prediction of the resurrection, was attributed to Jesus only after the issue; and in fact, it was an easy matter… to discover in the Old [Testament], types and prophecies of the resurrection.” (§114, pg. 582)

Of the story of the soldiers at Jesus’ grave, he observes, “In this narrative, peculiar to the first gospel, critics have found all kinds of difficulties… it is not to be conceived how the Sanhedrists could obtain the information, that Jesus was to return to life three days after his death: since there is no trace of such an idea having existed even among his disciples… Jesus, according to the evangelical accounts, never spoke plainly of his resurrection in the presence of his enemies; and the figurative discourses which remained unintelligible to his confidential disciples could still less be understood by the Jewish hierarchs, who were less accustomed to his mode of thought and expression.” (§136, pg. 705-706)

He continues, “It is more astonishing that the guards should have been so easily induced to tell a falsehood which the severity of Roman discipline made so dangerous, as that they had failed in their duty by sleeping on their post; especially as… they could not know how far the mediation promised by the [Sanhedrin] would avail… [The Sanhedrin] believe the assertion of the soldiers that Jesus had arisen out of his grave in a miraculous manner. How could the council, many of whose members we Sadducees, receive this as credible?... The real Sanhedrists… would have replied with exasperation: You lie! You have slept and allowed him to be stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be investigated by the procurator.” (§136, pg. 707)

He points out, “Manifold are the divergencies as to what the women further saw and learned at the grave. According to Luke they enter into the grave, find that the body of Jesus is not there, and are hence in perplexity until they see standing by them two men in shining garments, who announce to them his resurrection. In Mark… they see only one young man in a white garment… In Matthew they receive this information before they enter into the grave, from the angel, who after rolling away the stone sat upon it. Lastly, according to John, Mary Magdalene, as soon as she sees the stone taken away, and without witnessing any angelic appearance, runs back into the city… According to Mark, the women, out of fear, tell no one of the angelic appearance… According to John, Mary Magdalene has nothing more to say to John and Peter… than that Jesus is taken away… according to Luke, the women report the appearance to the disciples in general, and not merely to two of them; while according to Matthew, as they were in the act of hastening to the disciples, Jesus himself met them, and they were able to communicate this also to the disciples.” (§137, pg. 710) He adds, “with the difficulties of the harmonistic method … how comes it.. that of the many visits and appearances not one Evangelist relates all, and scarcely one the same as his neighbor, but for the most part each has chosen only one for representation, and each again a different one?” (§137, pg. 713)

One can hardly summarize an 800-page book (in small print!) within the confines of an Amazon review. But note that Albert Schweitzer (in his equally monumental The Quest of the Historical Jesus) gave the most glowing of reviews to Strauss’s book. Any serious student of Jesus, the ‘historical Jesus,’ New Testament studies, or Biblical criticism, absolutely MUST devote some serious study to it.

[James Mayuga]

Personal Notes: Started reading around 2021-11-5 give or take a few days.