Before closing this notice of Dr. Schenkel's work, we cannot help alluding to one feature of it, which is particularly repulsive, we mean the ultra-radical party spirit so glaringly manifested in its intemperate language and in its whole tendency. This is painfully evident to the German reader on nearly every page; but those of our English readers who wish to verify our remarks, we would refer to such passages as pp. 33, 41, 44, 58 et s., 76, 77, 92, 202, 234. All these and many others give this book the character of a violent party attack on all orthodox Christian belief and Church government, an attack which invidiously imports descriptions and even epithets of ecclesiastical phenomena from the present day into the history of the past, thus taking away well-nigh all its value as a historical work. We cannot wonder that these defects, combined with its undecided, semi-rationalistic, semi-mythical character, have procured for the book a condemnation from critics of well-nigh all shades; and we may safely predict, that ere long its influence will have died

away.

1

These remarks do not apply to the book which it is now our turn to consider,-a book which is to a considerable extent the pattern of Dr. Schenkel's work, but which greatly excels it in strictness of logic and delicacy of delineation,—we mean The Life of Jesus by Strauss. The name of David Friedrich Strauss brings us to the mythical theory, and, as this is one of the chief defences of modern scepticism, we must devote a little more time to it than to the others.

III. STRAUSS' "LIFE OF JESUS."

First of all, let us see what was the origin of this standpoint. Long before Strauss, men had begun to compare heathen mythologies with biblical narratives, and to conjecture that there might be some truths contained in the mythological fables, and some fables in the biblical history. Schelling discovered that all primitive history, proceeding from a time when writing was as yet unknown, especially if it contain

1 Cf. Luthardt, Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu, p. 46; and Uhlhorn, ubi sup., p. 67.

miraculous elements, must be a myth, i.e. a legend or fiction. It was especially De Wette who proceeded to apply this principle to the Old Testament, and who promulgated the general rule, that where any record relates inconceivable things in good faith, it is to be considered not as historical, but as mythical. Others soon began by the light of this maxim to investigate New Testament history, impelled, too, by newlyarisen critical doubts as to the genuineness of the Gospels. The inward motive of these researches was the rationalistic axiom that the miraculous is impossible. This was accompanied by the influence of recent philosophy, which dissolved the person of our Lord into a universal principle, and evaporated His incarnation, death, and resurrection into a number of universal, eternal, and spiritual truths. Thus, in their subjective idealistic view of the world, these systems calmly sail away over all historical testimonies, and regard the biblical history as a sacred mythology sprung from active religious fancy.

This is the view represented by Grohmann, who wrote in 1799 on "Revelation and Mythology." He maintains that the ideas current among the Jews had long beforehand settled what Christ, i.e. the Messiah, was to do. But Jesus Christ, as a historical individual, did not correspond to the expectations of the Jews. Not even that, in which all accounts agree, is a matter of fact; the people's contributions formed a popular idea of His life, and from this popular idea His history was made. Here we have the whole theory of Strauss and his followers enunciated thirty-six years before the first edition of Strauss' Life of Christ appeared.

The principle of these critics is, that the Gospels in the main consist of unintentional fictions as to the person of Christ, produced by the imagination of the first Christian churches, mostly in accordance with former Jewish predictions and expectations of the Messiah. Christ Himself, they say, gave people the impression of His Messiahship through the power of His word and spirit only, without yielding to their craving for miracles. And thus the apostles and the primitive Church regarded and preached Him. It was not until His life lay far behind them that the following generations, from a want of historical feeling, though on the whole in good faith, began involuntarily to

form legends, relating such outward wonders as were expected of Messiah, and to apply them to Christ. These legends were received without suspicion by our evangelists, who were men of the second century, and by them incorporated in the gospel narrative.

We now see the distinction between the principle of Rationalism and that of Mythicism. The former left a historical remainder after eliminating the miraculous element from the gospel narratives. This remainder is, for the most part, given up by the mythical treatment, and the Gospels are considered as productions of the religious imagination, clothing religious ideas in a quasi-historical, though really legendary garb. Of course, a certain amount of original fact is conceded even by this theory, and in this respect there is only a difference of degree between it and Rationalism, since its negations go a step further. Both agree entirely as regards the denial of the miraculous. But the mythical theory does. not labour to give a natural explanation of the miracles. It acknowledges that no straightforward exposition can remove them from the gospel history, because the New Testament writers themselves believed in them; therefore it simply relegates them to the realm of legend; as Strauss1 puts it: "We leave the writers in undisturbed enjoyment of their miracles; but we ourselves regard them as mere myths."

The first edition of Strauss' Life of Christ appeared in 1835 in 2 vols., and was written for the learned world. Its novelty consisted in the universal application of the mythical principle to the whole gospel history, and not merely the miracles of Christ, thus giving the finishing stroke to this theory by carrying it out to its last consequences.

We will now follow Strauss in his explanation of the origin. of these myths. Without further inquiry, he states that during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberias certain Messianic expectations were rife amongst the people of Israel, who imagined that their Messiah would be a political liberator, and expected Him to perform still greater miracles than those related in the Old Testament. And what happened? In the reign of Tiberias there appeared an ascetic named John, who preached repentance, and baptized those who professed it 1 Leben Jesu, edition of 1864, p. 146; cf. p. 23.

(sec. 45). Amongst his disciples there was a Galilean Jew, named Jesus, who was baptized amongst the rest (sec. 49); and when John had been put into prison, this man continued and developed his work. He conceived the idea of effecting a moral regeneration of the people by means of his teaching, and hoped for a supernatural interference on the part of God, by means of which the old kingdom of David should be again restored (i. 520). This perfectly corresponded to the longcherished Messianic ideas of the people (p. 521), and thus it occurred to his followers, that he himself was probably the Messiah. At first he was alarmed at this idea (p. 497), but he gradually raised himself to believe it (p. 503). The hatred of the ruling priestly party, however, brought him to the

cross.

On

This is, in short, the historical account of the life of Christ, as Strauss gives it in his book of 1835. This was the nucleus which was gradually encrusted by the present mass of legends and fictions in the following manner. After the first shock of Christ's death had passed away, the disciples felt the psychological need of reconciling the contradiction between the last fate of their master and their former Messianic hopes. searching in the Old Testament, they found many passages which spoke of servants of God who were tormented to death, and these, by dint of their bad exegesis, they applied to the sufferings of Messiah. Thus the belief gained ground in them, that Jesus was fore-ordained to suffer and die in this very capacity of Messiah; they were enabled to retain their former opinion of him, and "the shamefully killed Christ was not lost, but left to them" (ii. p. 638). Christ, according to their idea, had now entered into his glory. "But how could he neglect to send thence a message to his followers ? How well can we conceive that in the case of certain individuals, and especially of women, these feelings should have been subjectively excited so as to produce real visions; or, on the other hand, in the case of whole assemblies, that some visible or audible object, perchance the aspect of an unknown person, should produce the impression of an appearance of Christ!" Thus originated the legend of Christ's resurrection.

This was the impulse for the formation of further myths. Since the disciples preached that Christ had risen from the

dead, the Jews asked whether he had done any miracles, as this was a necessary attribute of the Messiah. The more the disciples became convinced of this necessity, the more they made themselves believe that Jesus must have performed miracles, only they could not have seen them rightly. And so, in their enthusiastic fancy, without intending to deceive, they began to adorn the simple picture of Christ with a rich garland of miraculous tales, especially applying to him all the characteristics of the Messiah who was predicted and hoped for, till at length the real history was entirely covered, and, in fact, destroyed by these " parasitic plants" (second edit., p. 621). Many sayings of Christ were converted into miracles. "There was no rest for a word or a figure of speech in primitive Christian tradition, until, if possible, it had been developed into the story of a miracle" (p. 514). When Jesus said that he would make his disciples fishers of men, tradition transformed this into the miraculous draught of fishes (sec. 70 et ss.). When he declared that an unfruitful tree should be cut down, this became in course of tradition the story of the withered fig-tree (sec. 104). Especially did this restlessly inventive tradition apply all the miraculous features which could be discovered in Moses and the prophets in a magnified form to the life of Christ. Because the hand of Moses and likewise his sister Miriam had been leprous and become clean again, and because Elisha had healed a leper, therefore Christ must also have healed lepers (ii. 52). Because Moses changed. water into blood, Christ must improve it into wine (i 220). Because the former fed the people with manna in the wilderness, Jesus must have fed the people in the wilderness too; and because Elisha fed one hundred people with twenty loaves (1 Kings iv. 42-44), the proportion must be enhanced in the case of Christ, and hence five loaves for five thousand people (ii. 205). Because Elisha made one man see, and many others blind (2 Kings vi.), it was thought probable that Christ should have healed the blind (ii. 2). Because Elisha healed Naaman without being present at his washing, it was necessary that the Messiah should not do less (ii. 111 et ss.) hence the legends about the centurion of Capernaum, and the Syro-Phoenician woman, both of them cures effected at a distance. The Jews believed in a co-operation of the