It must not be forgotten that from the middle of the pre- ceding century Semler had applied the word ' myths ' to some of the OT narratives, as, e.g., to the exploits of Samson ; and later on at the beginning of the 19th cent, de Wette had not hesi. tated to point out the important part which, in his judgment, was played both by myth and by legend in the writings of the OT.t At the same time he had not hesitated to accentuate, in language very similar to some of the utterances familiar to us to-day, the difference which lay between the application of the mythical and of the legendary theory to the OT and to the NT.t There were, indeed, two parts of our Lord's life, the be- ginning and the end, which this earlier criticism did not scruple to regard as shrouded in darltness, and to relegate to the same domain of myth or legend. The supporters of this kind of criticism were content, as Strauss himself expressed it, to enter the Evangelical history by the splendid portal of myth and to leave it by the weary paths of a natural explanation. Tins method of so-called natural explanation, which in its most crude form was characteristic of Paulus and the school which bore the name of Ration,alists, a method which .Strauss remorselessly attacked, became discredited and gave place to the mythical theory, which at least laid claim to thoroughness. But it is not too much to say that an explanation of the miraculous which is often akin to the crude exegesis of Paulus, meets us not infre- quently in Strauss himself and in much more recent attempts to prove that miracles did not happen.?
But by another path of inquiry the way was being prepared for Strauss. In 1750, J. D. Michaelis published his Introduction to the NT, and in the fourth edition of that work he examined with caution and candour the origin of all the NT books. Michaelis was followed by Semler in his Treatise on the Free Investifiation of the Camn, the very title of which seemed to mark the new principle of inquiry which was abroad. Semler has been recently called ' the father of criticism ' ; and if that title is not always appropriate to him, we may, at all events, speak of his epoch-making influence, and of the break which he caused between the traditional views of inspiration and the free examination of the authority and origin of each sacred book. 11 The new century was marked by Eichhorn's Introduction. This writer applied systematically the principle laid down by his forerunners, like Semler and Herder, and continued the attempt ' to read and examine the writings of the NT from a human
• See, e.g., Schwarz, Zur Gesch. ricr mutest. Theol; Pfleiderer, Devetoptnent of Theohgi/, p. 133 ; Nash, Historii of the Higher Criticism, p. 123 : ' Altogether 1835 is something more than a date in the history of literature. It stands for a new turn and direction in the Higher Criticism.*
t For a discussion of the differences between myth and legend, reference may be made to Knowling, Witness of the Epistles,
. 16ff. X See, e.g., Dr. Driver's remarks, LOT 1
I Cf. B. Weiss, Einleitung in das NT', p. 5ff.
and further
NTi
attempt.
to the \ar\ing pliM 1 i ni.rs of early Church history
and life. 'Even <ic \\ ■ ' : ■ , 'Hh mi lii-' I 'est representative men of the period, who conitjined so remarkably deep evangelical piety with freedom from prejudice and with thoroughness of learning, was often undecided in his judgment, and his conclusions were vague and uncert.\in. The criticism characteristic of the time was carried on, as it were, piecemeal : one book was defended or
There were henceforth two great critical iiioye- ments jiroceeding side by side — the eflbrt to in- terpret tlie Gospel narratives, and tlie eflbrt to investigate tlie origin of the NT books.
To the former of these eflbrts Strauss stood in the closest relation, and he claimed to introduce a theory of interpretation which should be complete and final. t To the latter Baur stood in tlie closest relation, and he claimed to make good a theory which treated the books of the NT from the point of view not only of tlieir origin, but of their pur- pose. Baur's book on the Pastoral Epistles, pub- lished in the same year as Strauss' Life of Jcsut: (1835), showed that his intention was to treat the NT books in connexion with their historical set- ting.
Some of the most successful attacks upon the first edition of Strauss' book -were based upon the
lie pai( A few
sources. A tew pages are all tliat he devotes to the authorship of tlie Gospels, and it is no wonder that men like Tholuck rightly fastened on this weakness in their opponent's position, and that much of Strauss' own subsequent vacillation was due to the same cause.J
But in 1864, apparently stirred by the reception given to Kenan's Vie dc Jesus, Strauss publislied his popular edition for the German people. And here he showed how thoroughly lie was prepared to endorse Baur's view of the late dates of the Gospels, and to assimilate the methods and con- clusions of the Tubingen school. § But, as Dr. Matheson and other writers have so forcibly pointed out, the two theories of Strauss and Baur are incompatible. The conscious tendencies and the dogmatic purpose discovered by Baur in the composition of the NT books cannot coexist with the purely unconscious working of myth.ll