Chapter 20

1[This passage varies slightly from the original, a subsequent amplification by Dr. Strauss being incorporated with it.—Tr.]↑2Plato, de Republ. ii. p. 377. Steph.; Pindar, Nem. vii. 31.↑3Diog. Laërt. L. ii. c. iii. No. 7.↑4Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 10. 15. Comp. Athenag. Legat. 22. Tatian, c. Græc. Orat. 21. Clement. homil. 6, 1 f.↑5Diodor. Sic. Bibl. Fragm. L. vi. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 42.↑6Hist. vi. 56.↑7Döpke, die Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, s. 123. ff.↑8Gfrörer. Dähne.↑9Homil. 5. in Levit. § 5.↑10Homil. 2. in Exod. iii.:Nolite putare, ut sæpe jam diximus, veterum vobis fabulas recitari, sed doceri vos per hæc, ut agnoscatis ordinem vitæ.↑11Homil. 5. in Levit. i.:Hæc omnia, nisi alio sensu accipiamus quam literæ textus ostendit, obstaculum magis et subversionem Christianæ religioni, quam hortationem ædificationemque præstabunt.↑12Contra Cels. vi. 70.↑13De principp. L. iv. § 20:πᾶσα μὲν(γραφὴ)ἔχει τὸ πνευματικὸν, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ τὸ σωματικόν.↑14Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. § 4:—σωζομένου πολλάκις τοῦ ἀλπθοῦς πνευματικοῦ ἐν τῷ σωματικῷ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ψεύδει.↑15De principp. iv. 15:συνύφηνεν ἡ γραφὴ τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τὸ μὴ γενόμενον, πὴ μὲν μὴ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι, πὴ δὲ δυνατὸν μὲν γενέσθαι, οὐ μὴν γεγενημένον. De principp. iv. 16:καὶ τί δεῖ πλείω λέγειν· τῶν μὴ πάνυ ἀμβλέων μυρία ὅσα τοιαῦτα δυναμένων συναγαγεῖν, γεγραμμένα μὲν ὡς γεγονότα, οὐ γεγενημένα δὲ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν.↑16De principp. iv. 16.↑17Homil. 6, in Gen. iii.:Quæ nobis ædificatio erit, legentibus, Abraham, tantam patriarcham, non solum mentitum esse Abimelech regi, sed et pudicitiam conjugis prodidisse? Quid nos ædificat tanti patriarchæ uxor, si putetur contaminationibus exposita per conniventiam maritalem? Hæc Judæi putent et si qui cum eis sunt literæ amici, non spiritus.↑18De principp. iv. 16:οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ τῶν πρὸ τῆς παρουσίας ταῦτα τὸ πνεῦμα ᾠκονόμησεν, ἀλλ’, ἅτε τὸ αὐτὸ τυνχάνον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς θεοῦ, τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων πεποίηκε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, οὐδὲ τούτων πάντῃ ἄκρατον τὴν ἱστορίαν τῶν προσυφασμένων κατὰ τὸ σωματικὸν ἐχόντων μὴ γεγενημένων.↑19Contra Celsum, i. 40.↑20Comm. in Matth., Tom. xvi. 26.↑21Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. 17.↑22De principp. iv. 19. After Origen, that kind of allegory only which left the historical sense unimpaired was retained in the church; and where, subsequently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of, this refers merely to a trope or a simile.↑23In his Amyntor, 1698. See Leland’s View of the Deistical Writers.↑24See Leland.↑25In his work entitled The Moral Philosopher.↑26Posthumous Works, 1748.↑27Chubb, Posthumous Works, i. 102.↑28Ibid., ii. 269.↑29The Resurrection of Jesus Considered, by a Moral Philosopher, 1744.↑30Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour. Published singly, from 1727–1729.↑31Schröckh, Kirschengesch, seit der Reform. 6 Th. s. 191.↑32Fragmente des Wolfenbüttelschen Ungenannten von G. E. Lessing herausgegeben.↑33Recension der übrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke desWolfenbüttelerFragmentisten, in Eichhorns allgemeiner Bibliothek, erster Band 1tes u. 2tes Stück.↑34Paulus’s Commentar über das neue Testament.↑35Eichhorn’s Urgeschichte, herausgegeben von Gabler, 3 Thl. s. 98. ff.↑36Allgem. Biblioth. 1 Bd. s. 989, and Einleitung in das A. T. 3 Thl. s. 82.↑37Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, drittes Stück. No. VI.: Der Kirchenglaube hat zu seinem höchsten Ausleger den reinen Religionsglauben.↑38Ad. Apollod. Athen. Biblioth. notæ, p. 3 f.↑39Hebraische Mythologie des alten und neuen Testaments. G. L. Bauer, 1802.↑40Institutiones Theol. Chr. Dogm. § 42.↑41Ammon,Progr. quo inquiritur in narrationum de vitæ Jesu Christi primordiis fontes, etc., in Pott’s and Ruperti’s Sylloge Comm. theol. No. 5, und Gabler’sn. theol. Journal, 5 Bd. s. 83 und 397.↑42Ueber Mythen, historische Sagen und Philosopheme der ältesten Welt. In Paulus Memorabilien, 5 stuck. 1793.↑43Vid. die Abhandlung über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, im 3ten. Band des Comm. über den Pent. s. 660.↑44Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte. Einl. s. 10. ff.↑45Einleit. in das N. T. 1, s. 408. ff.↑46Antiquit. xix. viii. 2.↑47Die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen und für welche der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann. In Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5 Bd. s. 235. ff.↑48Recens-von Paulus Commentar, im neuesten theol. Journal 7, 4, s. 395 ff. (1801).↑49Hebräische Mythologie. 1 Thl. Einl. § 5.↑50Ist es erlaubt, in der Bibel, und sogar im N.T., Mythen anzunehmen? Im Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 2, 1, s. 49 ff.↑51Ueber den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in Ullmann’s u. Umbreit’s theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 2, 3, s. 456 ff.↑52Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in ders. Zeitschrift, 1832, 4. Heft.↑53Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 422 ff. 453 ff.↑54Besonders durch Gieseler, über die Entstehung und die frühsten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien.↑55Vid. den Anhang der Schulz’schen Schrift über das Abendmahl, und die Schriften von Sieffert und Schneckenburger über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums.↑56In den Probabilien.↑57Geschichte der hebräischen Nation, Theil. i. s. 123.↑58In Henke’s Magazin, 5ten Bdes. 1tesStück. s. 163.↑59Versuch über die genetische oder formelle ErklärungsartderWunder. In Henke’s Museum, i. 3. 1803.↑60Kaiser’s biblische Theologie, 1 Thl.↑61Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur. ii. 1. s. 46.↑62Gabler’s neuestes theolog. Journal, 7 Bd.↑63Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, v. s. 235.↑64Ullmann, Recens. meines L. J., in den Theol. Studien u. Kritiken 1836. 3.↑65George, Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Entwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhältnisses zum christlichen Glauben, s. 11. ff. 108. ff.↑66Work cited, § 8, note 4. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32. Tholuck, s. 208. ff. Kern, die Hauptsachen der evangelischen Geschichte, 1st Article, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1836, ii. s. 39.↑67Comp. Kuinöl, Prolegom. in Matthæum, § 3; in Lucam, § 6.↑68e.g. Ammon, in der Diss.: Ascensus J. C. in cœlum historia biblica, in seinen Opusc. nov.↑69In Bertholdt’s Krit. Journ. v. Bd. s. 248.↑70Gabler’s neuestes theol. Journal, Bd. vii. s. 395.↑71Encyclopädie der theol. Wissenschaften, s. 161.↑72In Gabler’s neuestem theolog. Journal, Bd. vi. 4tes Stück. s. 350.↑73Gränzbestimmung dessen, was in der Bibel Mythus, u. s. f., und was wirkliche Geschichte ist. In seiner Bibliothek der heiligen Geschichte, ii. Bd. s. 155. ff.↑74Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der historischen Bucher des A. T., besonders des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatz gegen die blos mythische Deutung des letztern. Fritzsche. Kelle.↑75Exegetisches Handbuch, i. a. s. 1, 71.↑76Greiling in Henke’s Museum, i. 4. s. 621. ff.↑77See the quotations given by De Wette in his “Einleitung in d. N. T.” § 76.↑78Euseb. H. E., iii. 39.↑79Ullman, Credner, Lücke, De Wette.↑80Hieron. de vir. illustr. 3.↑81Contra Celsum, ii. 16. v. 56.↑82Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.↑83This is clearly demonstrated by Griesbach in his “Commentatio, quâ Marci Evangelium totum e Matthæi et Lucæ commentariis decerptum esse demonstratur.”↑84Chap. xvi. 10–17; xx. 5–15; xxi. 1–17; xxvii. 1–28; xxviii. 10–16.↑85Euseb. H. E. v. 20, 24.↑86De Wette, Gieseler.↑87Ad. Autol. ii., 22.↑88See Schleiermacher.↑89This same want of distinction has led the Alexandrians to allegorize, the Deists to scoff,[76]and the Supernaturalists to strain the meaning of words; as was done lately by Hoffmann in describing David’s behaviour to the conquered Ammonites. (Christoterpe auf 1838, s. 184.)↑90Heydenreich,über die Unzulässigkeit, u. s. f. 1 stück.Compare Storr, doctr. christ. § 35. ff.↑91If the Supranatural view contains a theological contradiction, so the new evangelical theology, which esteems itself raised so far above the old supranatural view, contains a logical contradiction. To say that God acts only mediately upon the world as the general rule, but sometimes, by way of exception, immediately,—has some meaning, thoughperhapsnot a wise one. But to say that God acts always immediately on the world, but in some cases more particularly immediately,—is a flat contradiction in itself. On the principle of the immanence or immediate agency of God in the world, to which the new evangelical theology lays claim, the idea of the miraculous is impossible. Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 3, s. 46 f.↑92In this view essentially coincideWegscheider, instit. theol. dogm. § 12; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., Vorbereitung; Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. § 46 f.; Marheineke, Dogm. § 269 ff. Comp. George, s. 78 f.↑93To a freedom from this presupposition we lay claim in the following work; in the same sense as a state might be called free from presupposition where the privileges of station, etc., were of no account. Such a state indeed has one presupposition, that of the natural equality of its citizens; and similarly do we take for granted the equal amenability to law of all events; but this is merely an affirmative form of expression for our former negation. But to claim for the biblical history especial laws of its own, is an affirmative proposition, which, according to the established rule, is that which requires proof, and not our denial of it, which is merely negative. And if the proof cannot be given, or be found insufficient, it is the former and not the latter, which is to be considered a presupposition. See my Streitschriften i. 3. s. 36 ff.↑94Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie, s. 110 ff.With this Ullmann, and J. Müller in their reviews of this work, Hoffmann, s. 113 f., and others are agreed as far as relates to the heathen mythi. Especially compare George,MythusundSage, s. 15 ff. 103.↑95The words of Baur in his review of Müller’s Prolegomena, in Jahn’s Jahrbüchern f. Philol. u. Pädag. 1828. 1 Heft, s. 7.↑96I. 19.↑97Midrasch Koheleth f. 73, 3 (in Schöttgen,horæ hebraicæ et talmudicæ, 2, S. 251 f.).R. Berechias nomine R. Isaaci dixit: Quemadmodum Goël primus(Moses),sic etiam postremus(Messias)comparatus est. De Goële primo quidnam scriptura dicit?Exod. iv. 20:et sumsit Moses uxorem et filios, eosque asino imposuit. Sic Goël postremus,Zachar. ix. 9:pauper et insidens asino. Quidnam de Goële primo nosti? Is descendere fecit Man, q. d.Exod. xvi. 14:ecce ego pluere faciam vobis panem de cælo. Sic etiam Goël postremus Manna descendere faciet, q. d.Ps. lxxii. 16:erit multitudo frumenti in terra. Quomodo Goël primus comparatus fuit? Is ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, q. d.Joel iv. 18:et fons e domo Domini egredietur, et torrentem Sittim irrigabit.↑98Tanchuma f. 54, 4. (in Schöttgen, p. 74):R. Acha nomine R. Samuelis bar Nachmani dixit: Quæcumque Deus S. B. facturus est‏לעתיך לבא‎(tempore Messiano) ea jam ante fecit per manus justorum‏בעולם הזה‎(seculo ante Messiam elapso).Deus S. B. suscitabit mortuos, id quod jam ante fecit per Eliam, Elisam et Ezechielem. Mare exsiccabit, prout per Mosen factum est. Oculos cæcorum aperiet, id quod per Elisam fecit. Deus S. B. futuro tempore visitabit steriles, quemadmodum in Abrahamo et Sarâ fecit.↑99The Old Testament legends have undergone many changes and amplifications, even without any reference to the Messiah, so that the partial discrepancy between the narratives concerning Jesus with those relating to Moses and the prophets, is not a decisive proof that the former were not derived from the latter. CompareActs vii. 22,53, and the corresponding part of Josephus Antiq. ii. & iii. with the account of Moses given in Exodus. Also the biblical account of Abraham with Antiq. i. 8, 2; of Jacob with i. 19, 6; of Joseph with ii. 5, 4.↑100George, s. 125: If we consider the firm conviction of the disciples, that all which had been prophesied in the Old Testament of the Messiah must necessarily have been fulfilled in the person of their master; and moreover that there were many blank spaces in the history of Christ; we shall see that it was impossible to have happened otherwise than that these ideas should have embodied themselves, and thus the mythi have arisen which we find. Even if a more correct representation of the life of Jesus had been possible by means of tradition, this conviction of the disciples must have been strong enough to triumph over it.↑101Compare O. Müller, Prolegomena, s. 7, on a similar conclusion of Grecian poets.↑102The comparison of the first chapter of this book with the history of Joseph in Genesis, gives an instructive view of the tendency of the later Hebrew legend and poetry to form new relations upon the pattern of the old. As Joseph was carried captive to Egypt, so was Daniel to Babylon (i. 2); like Joseph he must change his name (7). God makes the‏שַׂר הַסָּרִיסִים‎favourable to him, as the‏סָרִים שַׂר הַטַבָּחִים‎to Joseph (9); he abstains from polluting himself with partaking of the king’s meats and drinks, which are pressed upon him (8); a self-denial held as meritorious in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as that of Joseph with regard to Potiphar’s wife; like Joseph he gains eminence by the interpretation of a dream of the king, which his‏חַרְטֻמִּים‎were unable to explain to him (ii.); whilst the additional circumstance that Daniel is enabled to give not only the interpretation, but the dream itself, which had escaped the memory of the king, appears to be a romantic exaggeration of that which was attributed to Joseph. In the account of Josephus, the history of Daniel has reacted in a singular manner upon that of Joseph; for as Nebuchadnezzar forgets his dream, and the interpretation according to Josephus revealed to him at the same time, so does he make Pharaoh forget the interpretation shown to him with the dream. Antiq. ii. 5, 4.↑103Thus J. Müller, theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1836, iii. s. 839 ff.↑

1[This passage varies slightly from the original, a subsequent amplification by Dr. Strauss being incorporated with it.—Tr.]↑

2Plato, de Republ. ii. p. 377. Steph.; Pindar, Nem. vii. 31.↑

3Diog. Laërt. L. ii. c. iii. No. 7.↑

4Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 10. 15. Comp. Athenag. Legat. 22. Tatian, c. Græc. Orat. 21. Clement. homil. 6, 1 f.↑

5Diodor. Sic. Bibl. Fragm. L. vi. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 42.↑

6Hist. vi. 56.↑

7Döpke, die Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, s. 123. ff.↑

8Gfrörer. Dähne.↑

9Homil. 5. in Levit. § 5.↑

10Homil. 2. in Exod. iii.:Nolite putare, ut sæpe jam diximus, veterum vobis fabulas recitari, sed doceri vos per hæc, ut agnoscatis ordinem vitæ.↑

11Homil. 5. in Levit. i.:Hæc omnia, nisi alio sensu accipiamus quam literæ textus ostendit, obstaculum magis et subversionem Christianæ religioni, quam hortationem ædificationemque præstabunt.↑

12Contra Cels. vi. 70.↑

13De principp. L. iv. § 20:πᾶσα μὲν(γραφὴ)ἔχει τὸ πνευματικὸν, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ τὸ σωματικόν.↑

14Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. § 4:—σωζομένου πολλάκις τοῦ ἀλπθοῦς πνευματικοῦ ἐν τῷ σωματικῷ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ψεύδει.↑

15De principp. iv. 15:συνύφηνεν ἡ γραφὴ τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τὸ μὴ γενόμενον, πὴ μὲν μὴ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι, πὴ δὲ δυνατὸν μὲν γενέσθαι, οὐ μὴν γεγενημένον. De principp. iv. 16:καὶ τί δεῖ πλείω λέγειν· τῶν μὴ πάνυ ἀμβλέων μυρία ὅσα τοιαῦτα δυναμένων συναγαγεῖν, γεγραμμένα μὲν ὡς γεγονότα, οὐ γεγενημένα δὲ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν.↑

16De principp. iv. 16.↑

17Homil. 6, in Gen. iii.:Quæ nobis ædificatio erit, legentibus, Abraham, tantam patriarcham, non solum mentitum esse Abimelech regi, sed et pudicitiam conjugis prodidisse? Quid nos ædificat tanti patriarchæ uxor, si putetur contaminationibus exposita per conniventiam maritalem? Hæc Judæi putent et si qui cum eis sunt literæ amici, non spiritus.↑

18De principp. iv. 16:οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ τῶν πρὸ τῆς παρουσίας ταῦτα τὸ πνεῦμα ᾠκονόμησεν, ἀλλ’, ἅτε τὸ αὐτὸ τυνχάνον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς θεοῦ, τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων πεποίηκε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, οὐδὲ τούτων πάντῃ ἄκρατον τὴν ἱστορίαν τῶν προσυφασμένων κατὰ τὸ σωματικὸν ἐχόντων μὴ γεγενημένων.↑

19Contra Celsum, i. 40.↑

20Comm. in Matth., Tom. xvi. 26.↑

21Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. 17.↑

22De principp. iv. 19. After Origen, that kind of allegory only which left the historical sense unimpaired was retained in the church; and where, subsequently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of, this refers merely to a trope or a simile.↑

23In his Amyntor, 1698. See Leland’s View of the Deistical Writers.↑

24See Leland.↑

25In his work entitled The Moral Philosopher.↑

26Posthumous Works, 1748.↑

27Chubb, Posthumous Works, i. 102.↑

28Ibid., ii. 269.↑

29The Resurrection of Jesus Considered, by a Moral Philosopher, 1744.↑

30Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour. Published singly, from 1727–1729.↑

31Schröckh, Kirschengesch, seit der Reform. 6 Th. s. 191.↑

32Fragmente des Wolfenbüttelschen Ungenannten von G. E. Lessing herausgegeben.↑

33Recension der übrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke desWolfenbüttelerFragmentisten, in Eichhorns allgemeiner Bibliothek, erster Band 1tes u. 2tes Stück.↑

34Paulus’s Commentar über das neue Testament.↑

35Eichhorn’s Urgeschichte, herausgegeben von Gabler, 3 Thl. s. 98. ff.↑

36Allgem. Biblioth. 1 Bd. s. 989, and Einleitung in das A. T. 3 Thl. s. 82.↑

37Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, drittes Stück. No. VI.: Der Kirchenglaube hat zu seinem höchsten Ausleger den reinen Religionsglauben.↑

38Ad. Apollod. Athen. Biblioth. notæ, p. 3 f.↑

39Hebraische Mythologie des alten und neuen Testaments. G. L. Bauer, 1802.↑

40Institutiones Theol. Chr. Dogm. § 42.↑

41Ammon,Progr. quo inquiritur in narrationum de vitæ Jesu Christi primordiis fontes, etc., in Pott’s and Ruperti’s Sylloge Comm. theol. No. 5, und Gabler’sn. theol. Journal, 5 Bd. s. 83 und 397.↑

42Ueber Mythen, historische Sagen und Philosopheme der ältesten Welt. In Paulus Memorabilien, 5 stuck. 1793.↑

43Vid. die Abhandlung über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, im 3ten. Band des Comm. über den Pent. s. 660.↑

44Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte. Einl. s. 10. ff.↑

45Einleit. in das N. T. 1, s. 408. ff.↑

46Antiquit. xix. viii. 2.↑

47Die verschiedenen Rücksichten, in welchen und für welche der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann. In Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5 Bd. s. 235. ff.↑

48Recens-von Paulus Commentar, im neuesten theol. Journal 7, 4, s. 395 ff. (1801).↑

49Hebräische Mythologie. 1 Thl. Einl. § 5.↑

50Ist es erlaubt, in der Bibel, und sogar im N.T., Mythen anzunehmen? Im Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 2, 1, s. 49 ff.↑

51Ueber den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in Ullmann’s u. Umbreit’s theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 2, 3, s. 456 ff.↑

52Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in ders. Zeitschrift, 1832, 4. Heft.↑

53Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 422 ff. 453 ff.↑

54Besonders durch Gieseler, über die Entstehung und die frühsten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien.↑

55Vid. den Anhang der Schulz’schen Schrift über das Abendmahl, und die Schriften von Sieffert und Schneckenburger über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums.↑

56In den Probabilien.↑

57Geschichte der hebräischen Nation, Theil. i. s. 123.↑

58In Henke’s Magazin, 5ten Bdes. 1tesStück. s. 163.↑

59Versuch über die genetische oder formelle ErklärungsartderWunder. In Henke’s Museum, i. 3. 1803.↑

60Kaiser’s biblische Theologie, 1 Thl.↑

61Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur. ii. 1. s. 46.↑

62Gabler’s neuestes theolog. Journal, 7 Bd.↑

63Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, v. s. 235.↑

64Ullmann, Recens. meines L. J., in den Theol. Studien u. Kritiken 1836. 3.↑

65George, Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Entwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhältnisses zum christlichen Glauben, s. 11. ff. 108. ff.↑

66Work cited, § 8, note 4. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32. Tholuck, s. 208. ff. Kern, die Hauptsachen der evangelischen Geschichte, 1st Article, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1836, ii. s. 39.↑

67Comp. Kuinöl, Prolegom. in Matthæum, § 3; in Lucam, § 6.↑

68e.g. Ammon, in der Diss.: Ascensus J. C. in cœlum historia biblica, in seinen Opusc. nov.↑

69In Bertholdt’s Krit. Journ. v. Bd. s. 248.↑

70Gabler’s neuestes theol. Journal, Bd. vii. s. 395.↑

71Encyclopädie der theol. Wissenschaften, s. 161.↑

72In Gabler’s neuestem theolog. Journal, Bd. vi. 4tes Stück. s. 350.↑

73Gränzbestimmung dessen, was in der Bibel Mythus, u. s. f., und was wirkliche Geschichte ist. In seiner Bibliothek der heiligen Geschichte, ii. Bd. s. 155. ff.↑

74Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der historischen Bucher des A. T., besonders des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatz gegen die blos mythische Deutung des letztern. Fritzsche. Kelle.↑

75Exegetisches Handbuch, i. a. s. 1, 71.↑

76Greiling in Henke’s Museum, i. 4. s. 621. ff.↑

77See the quotations given by De Wette in his “Einleitung in d. N. T.” § 76.↑

78Euseb. H. E., iii. 39.↑

79Ullman, Credner, Lücke, De Wette.↑

80Hieron. de vir. illustr. 3.↑

81Contra Celsum, ii. 16. v. 56.↑

82Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.↑

83This is clearly demonstrated by Griesbach in his “Commentatio, quâ Marci Evangelium totum e Matthæi et Lucæ commentariis decerptum esse demonstratur.”↑

84Chap. xvi. 10–17; xx. 5–15; xxi. 1–17; xxvii. 1–28; xxviii. 10–16.↑

85Euseb. H. E. v. 20, 24.↑

86De Wette, Gieseler.↑

87Ad. Autol. ii., 22.↑

88See Schleiermacher.↑

89This same want of distinction has led the Alexandrians to allegorize, the Deists to scoff,[76]and the Supernaturalists to strain the meaning of words; as was done lately by Hoffmann in describing David’s behaviour to the conquered Ammonites. (Christoterpe auf 1838, s. 184.)↑

90Heydenreich,über die Unzulässigkeit, u. s. f. 1 stück.Compare Storr, doctr. christ. § 35. ff.↑

91If the Supranatural view contains a theological contradiction, so the new evangelical theology, which esteems itself raised so far above the old supranatural view, contains a logical contradiction. To say that God acts only mediately upon the world as the general rule, but sometimes, by way of exception, immediately,—has some meaning, thoughperhapsnot a wise one. But to say that God acts always immediately on the world, but in some cases more particularly immediately,—is a flat contradiction in itself. On the principle of the immanence or immediate agency of God in the world, to which the new evangelical theology lays claim, the idea of the miraculous is impossible. Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 3, s. 46 f.↑

92In this view essentially coincideWegscheider, instit. theol. dogm. § 12; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., Vorbereitung; Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. § 46 f.; Marheineke, Dogm. § 269 ff. Comp. George, s. 78 f.↑

93To a freedom from this presupposition we lay claim in the following work; in the same sense as a state might be called free from presupposition where the privileges of station, etc., were of no account. Such a state indeed has one presupposition, that of the natural equality of its citizens; and similarly do we take for granted the equal amenability to law of all events; but this is merely an affirmative form of expression for our former negation. But to claim for the biblical history especial laws of its own, is an affirmative proposition, which, according to the established rule, is that which requires proof, and not our denial of it, which is merely negative. And if the proof cannot be given, or be found insufficient, it is the former and not the latter, which is to be considered a presupposition. See my Streitschriften i. 3. s. 36 ff.↑

94Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie, s. 110 ff.With this Ullmann, and J. Müller in their reviews of this work, Hoffmann, s. 113 f., and others are agreed as far as relates to the heathen mythi. Especially compare George,MythusundSage, s. 15 ff. 103.↑

95The words of Baur in his review of Müller’s Prolegomena, in Jahn’s Jahrbüchern f. Philol. u. Pädag. 1828. 1 Heft, s. 7.↑

96I. 19.↑

97Midrasch Koheleth f. 73, 3 (in Schöttgen,horæ hebraicæ et talmudicæ, 2, S. 251 f.).R. Berechias nomine R. Isaaci dixit: Quemadmodum Goël primus(Moses),sic etiam postremus(Messias)comparatus est. De Goële primo quidnam scriptura dicit?Exod. iv. 20:et sumsit Moses uxorem et filios, eosque asino imposuit. Sic Goël postremus,Zachar. ix. 9:pauper et insidens asino. Quidnam de Goële primo nosti? Is descendere fecit Man, q. d.Exod. xvi. 14:ecce ego pluere faciam vobis panem de cælo. Sic etiam Goël postremus Manna descendere faciet, q. d.Ps. lxxii. 16:erit multitudo frumenti in terra. Quomodo Goël primus comparatus fuit? Is ascendere fecit puteum: sic quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, q. d.Joel iv. 18:et fons e domo Domini egredietur, et torrentem Sittim irrigabit.↑

98Tanchuma f. 54, 4. (in Schöttgen, p. 74):R. Acha nomine R. Samuelis bar Nachmani dixit: Quæcumque Deus S. B. facturus est‏לעתיך לבא‎(tempore Messiano) ea jam ante fecit per manus justorum‏בעולם הזה‎(seculo ante Messiam elapso).Deus S. B. suscitabit mortuos, id quod jam ante fecit per Eliam, Elisam et Ezechielem. Mare exsiccabit, prout per Mosen factum est. Oculos cæcorum aperiet, id quod per Elisam fecit. Deus S. B. futuro tempore visitabit steriles, quemadmodum in Abrahamo et Sarâ fecit.↑

99The Old Testament legends have undergone many changes and amplifications, even without any reference to the Messiah, so that the partial discrepancy between the narratives concerning Jesus with those relating to Moses and the prophets, is not a decisive proof that the former were not derived from the latter. CompareActs vii. 22,53, and the corresponding part of Josephus Antiq. ii. & iii. with the account of Moses given in Exodus. Also the biblical account of Abraham with Antiq. i. 8, 2; of Jacob with i. 19, 6; of Joseph with ii. 5, 4.↑

100George, s. 125: If we consider the firm conviction of the disciples, that all which had been prophesied in the Old Testament of the Messiah must necessarily have been fulfilled in the person of their master; and moreover that there were many blank spaces in the history of Christ; we shall see that it was impossible to have happened otherwise than that these ideas should have embodied themselves, and thus the mythi have arisen which we find. Even if a more correct representation of the life of Jesus had been possible by means of tradition, this conviction of the disciples must have been strong enough to triumph over it.↑

101Compare O. Müller, Prolegomena, s. 7, on a similar conclusion of Grecian poets.↑

102The comparison of the first chapter of this book with the history of Joseph in Genesis, gives an instructive view of the tendency of the later Hebrew legend and poetry to form new relations upon the pattern of the old. As Joseph was carried captive to Egypt, so was Daniel to Babylon (i. 2); like Joseph he must change his name (7). God makes the‏שַׂר הַסָּרִיסִים‎favourable to him, as the‏סָרִים שַׂר הַטַבָּחִים‎to Joseph (9); he abstains from polluting himself with partaking of the king’s meats and drinks, which are pressed upon him (8); a self-denial held as meritorious in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as that of Joseph with regard to Potiphar’s wife; like Joseph he gains eminence by the interpretation of a dream of the king, which his‏חַרְטֻמִּים‎were unable to explain to him (ii.); whilst the additional circumstance that Daniel is enabled to give not only the interpretation, but the dream itself, which had escaped the memory of the king, appears to be a romantic exaggeration of that which was attributed to Joseph. In the account of Josephus, the history of Daniel has reacted in a singular manner upon that of Joseph; for as Nebuchadnezzar forgets his dream, and the interpretation according to Josephus revealed to him at the same time, so does he make Pharaoh forget the interpretation shown to him with the dream. Antiq. ii. 5, 4.↑

103Thus J. Müller, theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1836, iii. s. 839 ff.↑

Back to Index Next