New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-15
STRAUSS'S "LEBEN JESU."
THE SECOND EDITION IN ENGLISH.

BY DR.. D3vtd Friedrich strauss. TRANSLATED from
the Fourth German Edition by George Eliot
Second Edition. in one volume. $40, PIP 'o4
Macmillan e. Co.
Strauss Life of Jesus" marked epoch in
the religious world when it first appeared in 1879
This was not SO much because Strauss questioned
the divinity Of Jesus and the literal truth OF the
accounts OF his life contained in the four Gospels
for many eminent German theologians IN the
eighteenth century and the beginning OF the nine
tcenth had done that. Hess in 1868, and lierder'
in 1896, showed a marked disposition TO explain
away the miraculous element IN the Uospcls
whenever they could. Schleiermacher maintained
Christs divinity, but Systematically reduced the
miracles to ordinary events. llase, in his " Leben
Jesu" us29), exhibited the same rationallzing
spirit, explaining many Of the miracles by the
possession on the part of Jesus OF sort of sana-
tive MAGNETISM The most prominent nationalist
before Strauss, however, was Heinrich Eberhard
Gottlob Pauus, whose "Leben Jesu" tlS2sl at
tempted 10 explain away all the supernatural IN
cdents in the Gospels, while at the same time the
honesty and credibity Of the Evangelists were
maintained But while the ratonalism of all
these writers found a large and influential follow
ing in Germany, and also, to very limited de-
gree in England, it was felt that many OF their
theories were untcnable, because they did not
square with the facts of history or of human
the stories of the Evangelists untrue so far
as they dealt with the supernatural, but that the
Fkangests themselves honest men and
faithful witnesses, soon acknowledged to be
inherently absurd. Even those who were most
disposed TO reject the supernatural saw that 1t
could not be done in that way. II was because
Strauss arose at this juncture with new and
much more plausible theory concerning the Cos
pes that he at once gained so large following
ard excited such fierce opposition mat theory
is briefly known as the mythical theory. Most OF
the preceding ratOnalists had 10 greater or less
degree assumed tho historical character of the
Gospel narratives. Strauss boldly threw that as
sumption overheard The Gospel narratives, he
said. were myths and being myths 1t was ldle
to look for any historic truth in them. Around
a few Unimportant facts concerning the man
Jesus the Evangelists, he contcnded. had woven
a number of myths which grew out OF the Mes
sanic expectations of the early followers of Jesus
This theory appeared to make good the defects
of the railroads.&c. conceptions of Jesus. and
for a time it excited widespread interest. But
il has long since been abandoned as untcnable,
and Strauss no longer holds place of authority
in the world Of scholars
His method was hard and mechanical, and III
many instances he forced the facts to Ut MS
theory Admitting the value OF much OF his
negative criticism he failed utterly TO account lor
Christ and Christianity. Why did these Gospel
narratives grow around the life of Jesus II Jesus
was only an ordinary man? And how came so
tremendous a fact as Christianity to arise on no
more stable foundation than a number OF IN
credible myths? There is not a glimmer OF an
answer to these and similar questions in strauss
book 1t is merciless ard logical in It's negative
criticism but it shows its author 10 have peeii
totally unfamiliar with the science of constructive
criticism. which is doing so much to-day 10 bring
out the real facts concerning the origin OF Chrls-
tianity. Strauss indeed. called the attention OF
the Christian world TO the fact that much OF It's
knowledge concerning Jesus was open to question:
bnt he furnished no positive facts that could not
he easily assailed and overthrown. He simply
criticised the Gospel history, without making any
attempt to examine critically theS Gospel docu-
ments themselves. which form the sources OF 'ie
history And no intelligent scholar to-day heeus
to be informed that it is along this path that mod
ern biblical critics have made and are making
their most important discoveries.
Strauss, indeed, knew nothing of the principles
of scientific historical inquiry row so universally
employed which require the critic to examine the
relative value Of various documents, their age,
the situation, character, interests and aims OF the
writers. and from the facts thus learned TO come
treated the Gospels en- bloc bringing to bear
upon them all equally the relentless principles OF
his theory: and in the light of modern critical
methods his method stands revealed as clumsy, in
accurate and untrue. II is possible that many
modern biblical critics are quite as hostile to the
s,pernstural as was Strauss, but al least their
hostility is founded on a more rational and his
torical conception of the phenomena relating 10
the life and career of Jesus told in the Gospels.
They have some understanding OF the ideal truth
and meaning of these documents which Strauss
did not have They may not acknowledge the
literal truth of many parts of these documents,
but they admit that tie Evangelists saw in Jesus
certain UNIQUE characteristics which they could
ONLY preserve by throwing them into the concrete
form in which the Gospels have come down 10 Nc.
Moreover, they do not assume as Strauss did, that
the Gospcls as we now have Them the nara
tons of eye-witncsses, but that they contain also
the unconscious colorng of that littc-known period
of the Church's history between the CrucliiXon
and the final adoption of the New Testament
canon. whose plastic thought concerning Jesus IS
in reality an essential part OF primitive Chris
tianity.
Nevertheless the work Of Strauss must always
retain its place as a classic in the literature OF
Cbristolorv For il is the MENUS which unite'
tho old school of rationalism, whose methods were
almost entirely destructive and the modern school
of constructive criticism, which approaches thc
life of Jesus with no priOrl theories, but sc's
itself simply TO learn what scientific study OIL
the Evangelists reveal concerning Him.