The Life of Jesus Critically Examined

parison with the Synoptic narrative The Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which share a common view., he has made acute observations, the worth of which ought to be estimated the higher as they boldly opposed the then-dominant preference for the Gospel of John and effectively prepared the way for the criticism of Baur. But it was not Strauss's forte French: "strength" or "strong point." to prepare, as the foundation of the material critique of the Gospel history, a thorough critique of the literary sources; nor, in the state of the general science of criticism at the time, could this be very well expected. When all deductions have been made, to Strauss belongs the honor of having given, by his criticism of the Gospel narratives, the most effective impulse to a more penetrating examination of the sources of the Gospel story, and of having prepared the way for this to no small extent, particularly as regards the Fourth Gospel. Baur's classical critique of this Gospel completed in this direction the criticism of Strauss and laid its foundations deeper. As regards the Synoptic Gospels, Weisse and Ewald, Holtzmann and Volkmar did good work towards clearing up the relations of the Gospels to each other, especially in establishing the priority of Mark The scholarly theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first and used as a source by Matthew and Luke., by which a firmer basis was laid for the positive decision of the question as to the historical foundations of the Gospel tradition. The fruit of this critique of the sources, carried on from various sides with painstaking industry, was the new literature dealing with the life of Jesus, which, just a generation after the first Leben Jesu German: "Life of Jesus." of Strauss, took up again the problems it had raised, but in a new fashion and with improved critical apparatus. We shall have further on to refer to Strauss's new life of Jesus.

The same scholar, Weisse, who was the first to