In the Church fathers, we find very little that appears to have been derived from clearly historical tradition, but the apocryphal gospels breathe a spirit entirely for- eign to historical truth, and are filled with accounts of petty miracles (Tholuck, Glaubiciirdir/hrit, p. 406 sq. ; Ammon, Leb. Jesu, i, 90 sq. ; compare Schmidt, Einl. ins X. T. ii, 234 sq., and Biblioth.f. Krit. u. Erer/ese, ii, 481 sq.). The passage of Joseph us (^ n^ xviii, 3, 3 ; see Gieseler, A'cc/es. IJist. § 24), which Eusebius {Ilist.Ecd. i, 11 ; JJemonstr. Ev. iii, 7) was the first among Christian writers to make use of, has been shown (see Hase, p. 12), although some have ingeniously striven to defend it (see, among the latest, Bretschneider, in his Diss, capita theolog. Jiid. dogniat. e Josepho collect. Lips. 1812 ; Boh- mert, Ueber des Jos. Zevgniss von Christo, Leipz. 1823 ; i^c\\6i\G\,Fl. Joseph, de J. Chr. testatus, Lips. 1840), to be partly, but not entirely spurious (see Eichstadt,i'7arja?ii de Jcsti Christo testimonii av^ivria quo jure miper rursus defensa sit, Jena, 1813 ; also his 6 Progr. m. einem auctar. 1841 ; Paulus, in the Heidelberg Jahrb. 1813, i, 269 sq. ; The ile, in the N. l-riiisch. Joitrn. d. theolog. Lit. ii, 97 sq. ; Hcinichen, Exc. 1 zu Euseb. II. E. iii, 331 sq. ; also Siippl, notajius ad Eusebium, p. 73 sq. ; Ammon, Leben Jesu,\, 120 sq.). See Josephus. (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The Koran (q. v.) contains only palpable fables concerning Jesus (Hottinger, Histor. Or. 105 sq. ; Schmidt, in his Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exegese, i, 110 sq. ; D'Herbelot, i?iMo/A. Orientale, ii, 349 sq. ; compare Augusti, Christologice Ko- ran lineam. Jena, 1799), and the Jewish History of Jesus (rvr^ ri-ibin, edit. Huklrici, Lugd. Bat. 1703 ; and in Wagcnseil, Tela ign. Satan. Altdorf, 1681) betrays itself as an abortive fabrication of Jewish calumny, destitute of any historical value (see Ammon, Bibl. Theol. ii, 263), while the allusions to Jesus in the Talmud and the Eab- bins have only a polemical aim (see Meelfuhrer, Jfswsjw Talmude, Altdorf, 1699, ii, 4 ; ^^'erner, Jesus in Tcdmude, Stadre, 1731; com[i.BYUseus, Be 7tatali J.C.ii, 4). (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The genuine Acts of Pilate ("Acta Pilati," Eusebius, Chron.Arm. ii, 207; compare Henke, Opusc. p. 199 sq.) are no longer extant [see Pii.ate] ; what we now possess under this title is a later fabrica- tion (see Ammon, i, 102 sq.). In the Greek and Koman profane authors, Jesus is only incidentally named (Taci- tus, A nnal. xv, 44, 3 ; Pliny, Epist. x, 97 ; Lamprid. Vit, A lex. Set: c. 29, 43 ; Porphyry, Be philosoph. ex. orac. in Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. iii, 7 ; Liban. in Socr. Hist. Ev. iii, 23; Lucian, J/o?-s^e?-e7r. c. 11, 13). On Suidas, s. v. 'h}<Tovc, see \\'alter, Codex in Suida mendax de Jesu (Lips. 1724). Whether by Chrestvs in Suetonius {Claud, p. 25) is to be understood Christ, is doubted by some (comp. Ernesti and Wolf, ad loc. ; see Claudius), but the unusual name Christus might easily undergo this change (see also Philostr. Soph, ii, 11) in popidar refer- ence (see generally Eckhan], Xon-Christianoi: de Christo testimoiiia, QueAlinh. 1737; Kcccher, Hist. Jesu Christo ex scriptorib. profan. eruta, Jena, 1726; Mej^er, Versuch e. Veiiheid. u. Erldut. der Geschichte Jesu v. d. Apostol. a. griech. it. roiii. Pnij'nusriib. Hannov. 1805; Fronmiiller, in the Studioi d, r iriiri, mb. Geistl. x, 1. On the Jesus of the book of Sirach. xliii. 25, see Seelen,i>e Jesu in Jesu Sirac.frustrn quiesito, Lubec. 1724; also in his Medit, exeg. i, 207 sq.).
3. The scientific treatment of the life of Jesus belongs to the modern ]ieriod of theological criticism. Among earlier contributions of a critico-chronological character is that of OfFerhaus {De vita J. C.privata etjmblica, in I his Spicil. histor. chronol. Groningen, 1739). GreiUng
JESUS CHRIST
(Halle, 1813) first undertook the adjustment, in a lively narrative, of the recent (rationalistic) exposition that has resulted, to the actual career of Christ. An indepen- dent but, on the whole, unsatisfactory treatise is that of Planck {Gesch. d. C/irislenth. in der Periode seiner^ ersten Einfiihr. in die Welt durch Jesum u. die Apostel, Gdttin- gen, 1818). Kaiser has attempted an analysis (Bibl. Thiol i, 230 sq.). Still more severe in his method of criticism is Paulus {Das Leben Jesu ah Grundlci'je einer reinen Gesch. d. Urchristenth. Heidelb. 18-28), and bold to a de^Tee that has alarmed the theological world is D. F. Strauss (Leben J. hit. bearbeif. Ttibing. 1835, and since). The latter anew reduced the evangelical histories (with the exception of a few plain transactions) to a mythical composition springing out of the Old-Test, prophecies and the expectations of the Messiah in the community, and, in his criticism upon single points, generally stands upon the shoulders of the preceding writers. In oppo- sition to him, numerous men of learning and courage rose up to defend the " historical Christ," some of them insisting upon the strictly supernatural interpretation (Lange ; Harless ; Tholuck, Glmihiriirdhibit d, r ,niri<jel. Gesch. Hami). 1838 ; Krabbo, \'<>ri, .<. iil„ r </,>.-: I., h, „ .lesit, Hamb. 183;) ), while others coiu/^'di' or |i:i>s ovur single points in the history (Neander, Leben J. Clir. Hamburg, 1837). Into this controversy, which grew highly per- sonal, a philosophical writer (\\'eisse, Ecmu/. Geschichte Krit. u. j)hilosoph. Bearbeitumj, Leipz. 1840) became in- volved, and attempted, by an ingenious but decidedly presumptuous criticism, to distinguish the historical and the unhistorical element in the evangelical account. At the same time, Theile (^Zur Biorp-aphie Jesu, Leipzig, 1837) gave a careful and conciliatory summary of the materials of the discussion, but Hase has published (in the 4th ed. of his Leben Jesu, Leipz. 1840) a masterly re- view, showing the gradual reject ion of the extravagances of criticism since 1829. The substance of the life of Jesus has thus now become established in general belief as historical truth ; yet Bauer {Krit. der evamjel. Gesch. d. Synoptiker, Leipz. 1841), after an analysis of the gos- pels as literary productions, calls the original narrative concerning Jesus " a pure creation of the Christian con- sciousness," and he pronounces the evangelical history generally to be '• solved." Thenius has met him with a proof of the evangelical history, drawn from the N.-Test. epistles, in a few but striking remarks {Das Kvamj. ohne die Evangelien, Leipz. 1843), but A. Ebrard ( Wiss. Krit. d. evam). Gesch. Frankf. 1842) has fully refuted liim in a learned but not unprejudiced work (see also Weisse, in the Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1843, No. 7-0, 13-15). But this heart- less and also peculiarly insipid criticism of Bauer— wliich, indeed, often degenerates into the ridiculous — appears to have left no impression upon the literarj^ world, and may therefore be dismissed without further consitleration (comp. generally (irimm, Glaubiciirdif/keit d. evangel. Gesch. in Bezug auf Htranss und Bauer, Jena, 1815). Lately, Von Ammon {Gesch. d. Leb. Jesu, Leipz. 1842) undertook, in his style of combination, carefully steering between the extremes, a narrative of the life of Jesus full of striking observations. Whatever else has been done in this department ((Jfriirer, Geschichte des Urchristenth. Stuttg. 1838; Salvador, Jesus Christ et sa doctrine. Par. 1838) belongs rather to the origin of Chris- tianity than to the data of the life of Jesus. In Catho- lic literature little has appeared on this subject (Kuhn. I^eben Jesu wissensch. bearbeitet, Mainz, 1838 ; of a more general character are the works of Francke, Leipz. 1838, and Storch, Leipz. 1841). (On the bearing of subjective views upon the treatment of the (iospel history, there are the monographs cited in Volbeding, p. fi.) See lit- erature below, and compare the art. Ciiristology.