‘Is Strauss’s account of the life of Jesus a Christian account?’
Strauss’s ‘The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined,’ presents the image of a historical Christ far distanced from
the traditional interpretations of church doctrine. Portrayed as the ‘Archetype,’ or ultimate realisation of
the ideal humanity,1 Strauss’s Christ is chiefly historical, as he attempts to remove all traces of myth and
allegory as presented in the Gospels. Most notably, Strauss advocated for conceptual thinking over
symbolic or mythical interpretation,2 presenting a new and controversial method of interpretation;
recognising the Gospels as unhistorical but aiming to extract a religious significance from them
nonetheless.3 In examining the social contexts of Strauss’s work, its critical reception, and his examination
of allegory and myth, Strauss’s account of the life of Jesus emerges as one distanced from the Christian
accounts as presented in church doctrine.
To understand the conditions in which Strauss’s account of Jesus’ life emerged, and its significance in
relation to Christian doctrine, it is important to first understand the social context in which Strauss was was
writing. The Enlightenment period in Germany saw the rise of a social protest against the ‘ancien regime’
and intellectual conservatism, notably in German universities.4 As a result, old ideas and establishments
were being challenged and examined through a new lens, a form of enquiry which Strauss adopted.
Additionally, the concept of academic freedom and ‘Wissenschaft’ (the ideal of a unity of knowledge)
began to emerge, as academic theologians still worked for the state.5 Although these ideas did not have
widespread support for some time, the concept of breaking away from the old order was signified with the
emergence of an ‘intellectual proletariat,’6 as contemporary theological academics to separate themselves
from establishments such as the Church or state. Furthermore, young Germans felt a widespread distrust in
institutional Christianity,7 as the promises of a progressive new Germany as perceived to have been
achieved by the French in the Revolution were not fulfilled. As a result of greater investigation into the
established Church, it was recognised that doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ, were essential in
maintaining the Church’s power,8 and undermining their plausibility would potentially lead to a movement
away from institutional Christianity. McGrath argues that Strauss’s presentation of Christ as merely
historical, and his idea that the Gospels lack historicity due to their use of myth, achieves the above effect,
and emerged as a result of his context.9 This can clearly be seen by the literary and social reception of
Strauss’s work, which will be discussed later.
Hegel’s ideas on the Incarnation and religion are also important in understanding Strauss’s presentation of
Jesus’ life. Strauss uses Hegel’s presentation of the historical Jesus in his enquiries, and he shares in some of
Hegel’s beliefs, although he disagrees with Hegel’s insistence that the perfect principle of religion can be
1
Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, by Dr. David Friedrich Strauss. Tr. from
the 4th German Ed. by George Eliot. Macmillan & co: England. 1892, pg770.
2
McGrath, Alister E. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to
Pannenberg. Blackwell: Oxford. 1986, pg62.
3
Morgan, Robert, and Barton, John. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1988, pg50.
4
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. Pg55.
5
Linstrum, Erik. “Strauss’s ‘Life of Jesus’: Publication and the Politics of the German Public Sphere.”
Journal of the history of ideas, 71.4 2010, pg607.
6
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. Pg57.
7
Ibid., pg58.
8
Ibid., pg58.
9
Ibid., pg58.
, actualised at some point in history.10 Hegel argues that the Incarnation presents the possibility of human
reconciliation with God, embodied in a historical form.11 Similarly, the eternal ‘Idea,’ of God and the Word is
fully realised in the concrete existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.12 Hegel also argues that all
religions are attempts to represent the concept of God, using differing representations to discuss the same
concept.13 As such, it seems that Hegel understands faiths as all having access to the same ‘truth,’ although
perhaps different parts of this truth. Hegel’s understanding of the historical Jesus, and his linking of
historical enquiry to religious significance is a similar method of understanding used by Strauss. Being
considered a Hegelian at certain points in his life, Strauss seems to adopt Hegel’s theological approach in
his work, such as by regarding the Gospel accounts as a source of historical, rather than theological
enquiry.14 Additionally, Hegel’s influence can be seen in Strauss’s argument that the historical and ideal
interpretations of Christ are separate elements which cannot be combined. 15 Whilst Strauss agrees with
Hegel that the ‘Ideal’ or ‘Archetype’ of God was realised in Jesus, he emphasises the importance of Christ
developing under the conditions of human life, and as such the ‘ideal’ must be perfectly historical. 16 As
such, it is clear that Strauss’s presentation of Jesus’ life departs from that of Christian doctrine.
Strauss’s presentation of a historical Jesus being separate from a supernatural interpretation, briefly
discussed above, presents a Jesus very different to the Christian interpretations of accounts of him. Strauss
examines the New Testament, noting how the root of faith in Jesus seemed to stem from his resurrection, 17
a problematic notion, since the imagination of the events and significance of the resurrection created new
characteristics signifying to the Messiah.18 As such, any and all characteristics previously attributed to the
Messiah were altered in which to align with this new belief, creating a new fabric of Messianic qualities
which perfectly fitted with Gospel presentations of Jesus. Further, Strauss argues that this idea of the
resurrection as proof of Jesus’ Messiahship provided the excuse for which to explain away the other
miracles presented by the Gospels in Jesus’ history,19 indicating at the unreliability of the Gospels’
historicity. Indeed, Eichhorn argues that turning the supernatural into the natural is impossible in the
Gospels,20 since it will always return to the mystical. Since the mystical and supernatural indicate a lack of
historicity in a narrative, Jesus’ life as presented in the Gospels has little historical basis. As such, Strauss
emphasises the importance in the separation of the historical and supernatural Jesus. 21 The supernatural
Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, is guided by myth, whilst the historical Jesus is the closest we can get to
the true image of Jesus’ life. Since Christian accounts of Jesus’ life are so heavily mythical, Strauss’s account
is very far from that expressed in doctrine, as removing these elements undermines the key principles of
Christian belief.
A further examination of the supernatural in the Gospels is presented in Strauss’s examination of the
‘mythi’ present in the Gospels’ analogous tradition, and the subsequent impact of this on their historicity.
10
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. pg59.
11
Ibid., pg51.
12
Ibid., pg52.
13
Ibid., pg52
14
Ibid., 59.
15
Strauss. The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined. Pg773.
16
Ibid., pg770.
17
Ibid., pg758.
18
Ibid., pg759.
19
Ibid., pg85.
20
Ibid., pg56.
21
Ibid., pg773.
Strauss’s ‘The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined,’ presents the image of a historical Christ far distanced from
the traditional interpretations of church doctrine. Portrayed as the ‘Archetype,’ or ultimate realisation of
the ideal humanity,1 Strauss’s Christ is chiefly historical, as he attempts to remove all traces of myth and
allegory as presented in the Gospels. Most notably, Strauss advocated for conceptual thinking over
symbolic or mythical interpretation,2 presenting a new and controversial method of interpretation;
recognising the Gospels as unhistorical but aiming to extract a religious significance from them
nonetheless.3 In examining the social contexts of Strauss’s work, its critical reception, and his examination
of allegory and myth, Strauss’s account of the life of Jesus emerges as one distanced from the Christian
accounts as presented in church doctrine.
To understand the conditions in which Strauss’s account of Jesus’ life emerged, and its significance in
relation to Christian doctrine, it is important to first understand the social context in which Strauss was was
writing. The Enlightenment period in Germany saw the rise of a social protest against the ‘ancien regime’
and intellectual conservatism, notably in German universities.4 As a result, old ideas and establishments
were being challenged and examined through a new lens, a form of enquiry which Strauss adopted.
Additionally, the concept of academic freedom and ‘Wissenschaft’ (the ideal of a unity of knowledge)
began to emerge, as academic theologians still worked for the state.5 Although these ideas did not have
widespread support for some time, the concept of breaking away from the old order was signified with the
emergence of an ‘intellectual proletariat,’6 as contemporary theological academics to separate themselves
from establishments such as the Church or state. Furthermore, young Germans felt a widespread distrust in
institutional Christianity,7 as the promises of a progressive new Germany as perceived to have been
achieved by the French in the Revolution were not fulfilled. As a result of greater investigation into the
established Church, it was recognised that doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ, were essential in
maintaining the Church’s power,8 and undermining their plausibility would potentially lead to a movement
away from institutional Christianity. McGrath argues that Strauss’s presentation of Christ as merely
historical, and his idea that the Gospels lack historicity due to their use of myth, achieves the above effect,
and emerged as a result of his context.9 This can clearly be seen by the literary and social reception of
Strauss’s work, which will be discussed later.
Hegel’s ideas on the Incarnation and religion are also important in understanding Strauss’s presentation of
Jesus’ life. Strauss uses Hegel’s presentation of the historical Jesus in his enquiries, and he shares in some of
Hegel’s beliefs, although he disagrees with Hegel’s insistence that the perfect principle of religion can be
1
Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, by Dr. David Friedrich Strauss. Tr. from
the 4th German Ed. by George Eliot. Macmillan & co: England. 1892, pg770.
2
McGrath, Alister E. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to
Pannenberg. Blackwell: Oxford. 1986, pg62.
3
Morgan, Robert, and Barton, John. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1988, pg50.
4
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. Pg55.
5
Linstrum, Erik. “Strauss’s ‘Life of Jesus’: Publication and the Politics of the German Public Sphere.”
Journal of the history of ideas, 71.4 2010, pg607.
6
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. Pg57.
7
Ibid., pg58.
8
Ibid., pg58.
9
Ibid., pg58.
, actualised at some point in history.10 Hegel argues that the Incarnation presents the possibility of human
reconciliation with God, embodied in a historical form.11 Similarly, the eternal ‘Idea,’ of God and the Word is
fully realised in the concrete existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.12 Hegel also argues that all
religions are attempts to represent the concept of God, using differing representations to discuss the same
concept.13 As such, it seems that Hegel understands faiths as all having access to the same ‘truth,’ although
perhaps different parts of this truth. Hegel’s understanding of the historical Jesus, and his linking of
historical enquiry to religious significance is a similar method of understanding used by Strauss. Being
considered a Hegelian at certain points in his life, Strauss seems to adopt Hegel’s theological approach in
his work, such as by regarding the Gospel accounts as a source of historical, rather than theological
enquiry.14 Additionally, Hegel’s influence can be seen in Strauss’s argument that the historical and ideal
interpretations of Christ are separate elements which cannot be combined. 15 Whilst Strauss agrees with
Hegel that the ‘Ideal’ or ‘Archetype’ of God was realised in Jesus, he emphasises the importance of Christ
developing under the conditions of human life, and as such the ‘ideal’ must be perfectly historical. 16 As
such, it is clear that Strauss’s presentation of Jesus’ life departs from that of Christian doctrine.
Strauss’s presentation of a historical Jesus being separate from a supernatural interpretation, briefly
discussed above, presents a Jesus very different to the Christian interpretations of accounts of him. Strauss
examines the New Testament, noting how the root of faith in Jesus seemed to stem from his resurrection, 17
a problematic notion, since the imagination of the events and significance of the resurrection created new
characteristics signifying to the Messiah.18 As such, any and all characteristics previously attributed to the
Messiah were altered in which to align with this new belief, creating a new fabric of Messianic qualities
which perfectly fitted with Gospel presentations of Jesus. Further, Strauss argues that this idea of the
resurrection as proof of Jesus’ Messiahship provided the excuse for which to explain away the other
miracles presented by the Gospels in Jesus’ history,19 indicating at the unreliability of the Gospels’
historicity. Indeed, Eichhorn argues that turning the supernatural into the natural is impossible in the
Gospels,20 since it will always return to the mystical. Since the mystical and supernatural indicate a lack of
historicity in a narrative, Jesus’ life as presented in the Gospels has little historical basis. As such, Strauss
emphasises the importance in the separation of the historical and supernatural Jesus. 21 The supernatural
Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, is guided by myth, whilst the historical Jesus is the closest we can get to
the true image of Jesus’ life. Since Christian accounts of Jesus’ life are so heavily mythical, Strauss’s account
is very far from that expressed in doctrine, as removing these elements undermines the key principles of
Christian belief.
A further examination of the supernatural in the Gospels is presented in Strauss’s examination of the
‘mythi’ present in the Gospels’ analogous tradition, and the subsequent impact of this on their historicity.
10
McGrath. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg. pg59.
11
Ibid., pg51.
12
Ibid., pg52.
13
Ibid., pg52
14
Ibid., 59.
15
Strauss. The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined. Pg773.
16
Ibid., pg770.
17
Ibid., pg758.
18
Ibid., pg759.
19
Ibid., pg85.
20
Ibid., pg56.
21
Ibid., pg773.
