Preface and Contents

Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics 

by Bruno Bauer 

Volume 1. 

Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1841.

(machine translated by Neil Godfrey, March 2023)

v

Preface

The point at which we begin the critique of the synoptic Gospels is the following. 

The traditional hypothesis, according to which the content of the Gospels had its source in the tradition of the community and which received its most consistent development from Strauss, was initially successfully countered by Weiße. He showed, in a few words hitting the nail on the head, that a tradition of this kind, which carried the entire evangelical history in a “specific type” with it, was foreign to the community in the first centuries of its existence. Moreover, he was fortunate enough to make the discovery that the writing of Mark is the Gospel which the authors of the first and third Gospels had used.

Was it certain as a result of this, or at least could it become certain, that the historical material of the first and third Gospels was not taken from the tradition of the community, but arose as a literary adaptation of the information provided by the writing of Mark, especially since Weiße had not yet fully proven his discovery in detail? Before answering this, Weiße had two more questions to answer. The traditional hypothesis was to be dispensed with when it came to explaining the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and if the source was to be identified from which the sayings and speeches of Jesus, which the first and third Gospels contain, had flowed.

vi

Weiße found the answer to both questions in the well-known notes preserved for us by Eusebius from the writing of Papias. Mark composed his gospel from the occasional narrations of the Apostle Peter, whose companion he had been. As for the sayings and speeches of Jesus, with which the first and third evangelists enriched their writings, they were taken from the collection of sayings which the Apostle Matthew had prepared.

Among other difficulties, there was one in particular that could endanger Weiße’s view. The tradition hypothesis sees in the miracles reported in the Gospels one of the strongest proofs that no apostle or eyewitness of the historical activity of Jesus could have transmitted the content of their writings to the evangelists. Weiße eliminates this danger by explaining the most striking miracle stories as parabolic and allegorical representations which Jesus himself created. He often even notes that in these accounts we still possess the literal representation of Jesus.

Both methods of determining the origin of the Gospels and the source of their content can be brought under a general perspective and related to the entire worldview of their authors. Strauß’s method is mysterious, while Weiße’s is positive. Strauss remains faithful to his hypothesis, which he has now carried out with the thoroughness and decisiveness of a scientific character in his criticism of doctrine, the standpoint that substance is the absolute. The tradition in this form of universality, which has not yet reached the actual and rational determinacy of universality, which is only attainable in self-consciousness, in its individuality and infinity, is nothing but substance that has been drawn out of its logical simplicity and taken on a certain form of existence as the power of the community. This view is mysterious because it can only produce the appearance of a process every time it tries to explain and bring to mind the process that gave rise to the evangelical history, and it must reveal the indeterminacy and inadequacy of the substantiality relationship. It is mysterious because it is tautological. The statement: The evangelical history has its source and origin in tradition, sets the same thing twice: “tradition” and “evangelical history,” indeed also sets them in relation, but does not tell us what inner process of substance the development and interpretation of it owes its origin to. But this statement cannot solve the problem either, for substance “is” its attributes and modes and tradition “is” the evangelical history from the outset. This view is still orthodox, and it could not be otherwise at the moment when criticism, for the first time in a developed universality, confronted the ecclesiastical standpoint and was to come into direct, even if hostile, contact with it for the last time. In such moments, when two opponents are to measure themselves with all their might, negation has its language, its principle, and the realization of this principle is still dependent on its opponent. It is not yet internally free from it, and what it is, is the complete image of its opponent, and both worlds, even if each is the opposite or the inverse of the other, are in themselves the same world. For the question that matters only if we want to know how the evangelical history and its presentation in the Gospels came into being, it is indifferent whether one answers that the evangelists wrote down the given history under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or that the evangelical history formed itself in tradition. Both are essentially the same since they are equally transcendent and affect the freedom and infinity of self-consciousness in the same way.

viii

The lasting merit of Strauss is that he spared the further development of criticism from the danger and effort of direct contact with the earlier orthodox system. Of course, we do not mean to say that criticism no longer needs to undertake the work of dissolving the traditional views. On the contrary! This work will now have the most prosperous progress and finally succeed in securing and establishing its freedom and recognition in the world through the recognition of the new world principle and the old. We mean only, as goes without saying, that after Strauss’s great achievement, criticism will no longer be in danger of maintaining the categories of the older orthodox view. Similarly, criticism no longer needs to seek its immediate opposite in the earlier ecclesiastical system: it now carries it within itself, and in its abstract, pure form, it can successfully fight the case with it. It has its internal opposition in the work of Strauss, and if it succeeds in dissolving his view of substance and his tradition hypothesis, it will have resolved the earlier orthodox view in its highest perfection.

Thus, criticism must turn against itself and dissolve the mysterious substantiality in which it has held itself and the matter to where the development of substance itself drives it – to the universality and determinacy of the idea and its real existence – infinite self-consciousness.

ix

On this path, which leads criticism to the ultimate and highest point where everything finds its origin and explanation, to self-consciousness, the view of Weiße will also find its criticism and dissolution.

We can say that it was not by chance that Strauss increasingly recognized positive elements in the Gospels in the later editions of his work, until in the third edition – the apologists applauded him and thanked him for the applause he had given them! – he succumbed to apologetic reasoning everywhere, and the discussions of the most important points ended in Neander’s and de Wette’s half-heartedness. It testifies to the weakness of the apologetic standpoint, which always deals only with the incidental aspects of the person and never with the matter itself, that people eagerly searched for such “concessions” and triumphantly counted them as victories of truth. How impoverished the truth must be for this standpoint that it was believed to have been saved and “land” was already called again when a single critic allowed the weakness, not the strength, of his principle to come to fruition. The strength of the substantiality relationship lies in its impulse, which leads it to the concept, the idea, and self-consciousness. Its weakness is revealed when it seeks to assert itself alone but must partly submit to the positive feeling that it does not contain the absolute solution to the puzzle. The view of substance is critical – see Spinoza – but just as much it falls back to the immediate recognition of the positive – see Spinoza. It is only this internal contradiction of the standpoint, which takes substance as a principle, that brought Strauss to those half-concessions – and the theologians rejoiced over them?

Weiße led the transition from Strauß’s standpoint to the positive – a transition that is usually made when substance is once known as the principle – and since he did it consistently and consciously, it was natural that he opposed Strauß from the outset. The consequence must fight the previous standpoint because it has to dissolve its one-sided determinacy.

x

Weiße’s interpretation of the holy history and his criticism of the gospel narrative is the reflection and testimony of his positive philosophy. Weiße distinguishes himself from all adherents of this philosophy by the depth and stimulation of his research, by his critical view, and by the liveliness with which, for example, immediately after the publication of Strauss’s work, he engages with the interests of the present. These are the qualities that we owe to his excellent discussions of the gospel history, striking and successful remarks *), his first, albeit not yet victorious explanation against the hypothesis of tradition, and especially his correct and exhaustive explanation of the gospel childhood story. However, we do not owe these discussions and discoveries to his positive philosophy, as they were not made with knowledge and intention. Everything else that characterizes Weiße’s standpoint, however, arises from this philosophy, is its imprint, and the standpoint opposed to this positive philosophy is characterized as apologetic. Just as this philosophy held up against the Hegelian system in terms of the given and the real, Weiße’s criticism of the gospel narrative remains fixed on an empirically given as the ultimate, at which one must be satisfied if, in the Gospel of Mark and the collection of sayings in Matthew, it recognizes the two pillars of Hercules on which the criticism is supposed to rest. These two points are considered fixed, and the creative self-consciousness has no part in them, and the critical power is powerless over them. Finally, just as positive philosophy regards the limited personality as the last and highest, the corresponding criticism is satisfied when it finally reaches a personality that vouches for the correctness of the given, just as it believes it is entitled to draw conclusions about a personal originator from the nature of the given state of affairs. Peter told it to Mark, Peter even told some things in Jesus’ own words, and Mark reported those same words to us. Finally, Matthew preserved a whole series of speeches and sayings of Jesus in his collection, and the first Synoptist faithfully reported them to us: who could ask for a more reliable personal guarantee? Even in some miracle stories, we still have the symbolic representation that Jesus himself created to bring the essence of the Son of Man to his disciples’ understanding: here, too, where the Straussian criticism believed it could find the revelation of the substantial tradition most securely, Weiße finds the immediate work of Jesus’ personality.

* The most successful remarks are those concerning the report in the fourth Gospel that Jesus baptized – Weiße himself says that the cardinal point of criticism lies in the decision of this question – and the striking discussion of Jesus’ relationship to John the Baptist. It was through the decision of these two questions alone that Weiße gave new vitality and impetus to criticism, which, properly guided, had to bring about the final crisis.

xi

A part of Weiße’s reasoning and perhaps this part with its entire foundation has already been refuted and overthrown by Wilke in his work – whose memory will be immortal! – We say perhaps! What is certain is that, after the thorough proof that Wilke has provided for the proposition that the first evangelist, apart from Mark’s scripture, used and transcribed that of Luke, he only needed the space of a page to briefly state the fact that, for example, the Sermon on the Mount of the first synoptic is “the expanded one of Luke*). With this, Wilke has dealt a deadly blow to the hypothesis that a collection of sayings by the Apostle Matthew was used by the first and third synoptics, for it is precisely in the writing of the former that one would find the most reliable traces of it, if it had ever really existed. Wilke also continues with the correct consequence to the assertion that a collection of sayings, such as that mentioned by Papias as the writings of Matthew, did not exist on its own**).” But he has not yet provided the final proof, as he has not yet shown where Luke got the sayings with which he enriched Mark’s scripture***).

*) The First Gospel, p. 685. 686.

**) Ibid., p. 691.

***) We are still waiting for this proof from Wilke, ibid., p. VI.

xii

Wilke, whose work was published at the same time as Weiße’s writing, otherwise secured the discovery of the latter that the Gospel of Mark was used and copied by the other two with extraordinary thoroughness for all time: at the moment when the extraordinary find was made, Wilke provided the final confirmation.

With this remarkable coincidence, it was to be expected that Wilke would also bring the polemic that Weiße so successfully opened against the tradition hypothesis to a decision at the same time.

Wilke went even further than Weiße, but it is difficult to determine how far he went, since he did not express himself clearly on this matter and did not seem to have come to a decisive conclusion even when he published his work. He does not share the positive view on the origin of the Gospel of Mark, which will now be the focal point of critical investigations, but, as mentioned, it is difficult to say how much he does not share it.

xiii

Wilke has essentially proven that the Gospel of Mark is of literary origin. Essentially: insofar as he has provided the essential materials of the proof. After his thorough work, he may say that the work of Mark is “not a copy of an oral primitive gospel but an artificial composition”.*) He may call this work a “work of art”** because of its composition and because it searches for a purpose set with consciousness and with equal freedom. Finally, he can say***): “that its compilations are less determined by historical connections than by preconceived general principles, although they have assumed the appearance of historical connections. This is explained by the fact that its author was not one of Jesus’ immediate companions.”

*) Ibid. p. 684.

**) p. 671.

***) p. 684.

However, it is only unclear to what extent, according to Wilke’s opinion, the substance should be assumed as given, while the certainty that the form is created is given. So unclear that Weiße, when he reviewed Wilke’s book in the Berliner Jahrbücher, expressed the certainty that now the highest guarantee for the truly historical character of the gospel accounts had been given.

Actually, we dare not say that it is unclear whether Weiße understood Wilke’s meaning. Wilke himself says †): “The guarantors of the information on which the narrators of the story relied were not people who had inquired from others or written down what they had asked around in Galilee, but the apostles, and among them those who from the beginning, that is, from where the account had to begin in order to become a whole, had been servants of the word.” According to Wilke, this original gospel is contained in the Gospel of Mark and has come to Luke and Matthew with it.

†) Ibid., page 657-658.

xiv

In essence, Wilke still stands on Weiße’s positive standpoint, but since he has now most convincingly proven the written origin of the primitive Gospel, the contradiction of this standpoint has reached the point where it demands a resolution. We have attempted to provide a resolution and have submitted our work, which, from its standpoint, had to examine the matter completely in order to solve the problem thoroughly, to the judgment of the critics.

The criticism of the fourth gospel had forced me to acknowledge the possibility that a gospel could be of purely written origin, and finally convinced me that we possess such a writing in that gospel, while I was still in inner conflict with the result of Wilke’s writing. However, once that conviction was established, and I turned to the synoptic gospels to test again whether they too were of this origin, the necessity of progress could no longer be denied, since the dialectic of form and content demanded it.

If the form is consistently of written origin and gives the gospel of Mark the character of a “work of art,” and if an “artificial composition” not only influences the content but also creates content itself, can we still cling to the recognition of a specific positive? That is to say – one must understand this properly! – can we still hope to find the supposed positive as such – as the purely given and nakedly real – directly in the presentation of Mark as such – as artificial? No!

xv

The task of criticism – the last one that could be posed to it – is now clearly to investigate both the form and the content to see if it is also of a purely writerly origin and a free creation of self-consciousness.

The recognition and acceptance of the writerly principle, the creative self-consciousness, is therefore the key, and with it comes the final critique of substance and – the tradition hypothesis.

Weiße, as well as Wilke, have only refuted the tradition hypothesis in the version that assumes that “the specific type” of the evangelical historiography was formed in tradition. Consequent! Their interest could only be on the form since they were certain from the outset that the essential content was immediately transmitted from the apostles to the synoptic Gospels. But since this origin of the substance is still disputed and by the correct understanding of the origin of the form has become all the more doubtful, that hypothesis could be even more powerful and again take up the substance in its domain and let it form itself in the mystery of tradition.

Against this new attack on the substance, we must first secure self-awareness, and if we succeed, we must no longer conceal that the correct understanding of the evangelical history also has its philosophical foundation, namely, in the philosophy of self-consciousness.

xvi

In the preface to the Critique of the Fourth Gospel, we expressed the hope that philosophy would be left out of the game when it comes to evaluating historical-critical work. Rightly so! One may hope and demand it if the apologist has the notion that a philosophical principle is an external condition to which the given and its – as it is called – unbiased interpretation are forcibly sacrificed. We will not engage in talk of presuppositions here, but we will certainly make amends to philosophy, which we have offended when we expressed that hope – briefly, because nothing more is needed. It is clear that no person can come into direct contact with something given; mediation – whether it is called presupposition or whatever else – is necessary. Indeed, for a person, nothing can even be given without mediation, and the only thing that matters is that the true mediation is present. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Gospels were written by humans and that their content, along with their form, passed through a human self-consciousness: as works of self-consciousness, they find in us something homogeneous, for which they can be given and objects of contemplation. Finally, their content is considered infinite and absolute, and the self-consciousness for which they are given is the infinite energy and self-consciousness of the infinite in its development and universality: according to these simple, unassailable propositions, it is decided whether it is done with an “external” philosophical presupposition when the content given as absolute is set in motion in the self-consciousness for which it alone can be given and now comes to life in its original element, in its home, and develops its nature freely!

xvii

The tradition hypothesis still had one point in common with the earlier orthodox view, and both held it from opposite directions. Both maintained that when Jesus appeared, the Jews not only had long expected “the Messiah,” but had also developed a complete Christology – which, under this assumption, they undoubtedly had to do. Weiße had already proven against Strauss that the evangelical views did not arise from the Jewish messianic dogma, nor did they originate from Old Testament passages. But he only demonstrated one thing: that they had their origin in Christian self-consciousness. He only showed this in the infancy narratives – but he did so convincingly and brilliantly – and he had no need to go as far as asking whether the Gospels presuppose a Jewish Christology at all. It is precisely at those points where Strauss confidently looks back to the alleged dogma of the Jews that Weiße helps himself by making the evangelical accounts symbolic representations that Jesus himself formed. In vain! As we shall see, this is not how the knot is untied, and the supply to the supporters of the tradition hypothesis is not yet cut off.

Historical criticism consistently pursued ultimately comes to the point where the fate of this hypothesis is decided, where it is about life and death. It can be proven that before the appearance of Jesus and before the formation of the community, the reflective concept of “the Messiah” did not exist, and therefore there was no Jewish Christology at that time, which the evangelical accounts could have imitated.

xviii

This sentence liberates biblical criticism for the first time, breaking the bridges and burning the ships that connected it to the earlier orthodox view, taking away the last support it had in the unrecognized positive, and placing it in the free element of self-consciousness, to which it must now hold and orient itself. It is thus returned to its true and only home, along with its subject matter. The hunger strike will have been helped.

Although this sentence, like the others that the following lines will provide, may not immediately gain general approval — which is neither necessary nor possible — one thing will in any case be gained, namely that criticism, through the history of its development and its internal contradictions, will be completely detached from apologetics and thus, apart from its struggle with this external antithesis, will hold an independent interest and be recognized as a sovereign power. For as soon as it generates contradictions within itself and its previous form is recognized as the image of apologetics, victory is won, and apologetics, which stands outside, has lost its interest and has even become incapable of following the new development of things. It is finished, its case is done, and even though it still has millions of representatives today, it belongs itself to a far-distant past. At most, it may be surprised by the new phases of development, like someone who wakes up from a dream and sees everything around him has changed, and this surprise will have something humorous about it, especially since there are many apologists who have hardly heard of Wilke’s work. *)

*) The arrogance of apologetics, which also looked down on Weiße’s treatise and despised Weiße’s happy divinatory views with which he extracted the inner character of the fourth Gospel, we believe we have sufficiently punished through our criticism of this Gospel. The finger of fate, which knocked at the door, was not understood by apologetics: so let it now die an unrepentant death if it is surprised by the collapse of its building.

The bill of apologetics has grown so rapidly in recent times that the hour of reckoning has suddenly struck. Its last shameful act was the mistreatment it inflicted on the indestructible core of Lützelberger’s book. Unanimously, the apologists drew the convenient conclusion from the weak and admittedly untenable part of this book that the core had nothing to do with them. Mene, mene, thekel, uparsin!

xix

This favorable position that criticism now enjoys makes it possible for it to comprehend, judge, and settle accounts with its former historical opposition in its simple category. This opposition is apologetics, which we understand as the form of consciousness that is satisfied with the recognition of a positive without having investigated it and recognized it as a determination and work of self-consciousness. However, it would be impossible for criticism to remain interested in this form of consciousness unless it regarded it as a universal category and recognized its power in its own domain. Criticism is dealing with its own appearance when it confronts apologetics, as it was once drawn into the positive interests of apologetics in the early stages of its development. Even Strauss and Weiße have still limited their criticism apologetically. Therefore, criticism has experienced its enemy within itself and, after this experience and self-awareness, can find and defeat it in all its hiding places both inside and outside.

One of the successes that this struggle will have, and not an insignificant one, will be the final decision of the issue for which the older rationalism has fought and still fights against philosophical criticism today. The rationalist believes, how half-heartedly and inconsistent, that the biblical word and the church symbol can be separated in such a way that the latter, the free work of self-consciousness, is rejected, while the former, the letter, is recognized as absolute. This letter service, which nevertheless leads only to a violent struggle of abstract self-consciousness against the positive, this service and its consequence, the repulsive struggle of the servant with his lord, will come to an end when the biblical word is recognized as a determination, work, and revelation of self-consciousness. Even rationalism is apologetic and will be considered as such in the following investigations.

xx

The older followers of the Hegelian system are somewhat resentful and resistant to the consistent development of the Critique*). However, it is easy to show that consistency in this case is the right path and leads to the complete realization of the system. Whatever may be expressed in Hegelian terms, such as elevation above the Bible, progress to thought, to the universal, etc., at least this is acknowledged as permissible, even necessary. But this would certainly not be an elevation worthy of the philosopher if it were to be immediate, that is, if it were not to be a process or if it were to be a leap from one point to another. It must be mediated by the recognition and negation of the starting point, justified by the internal nature of the letter itself if it is to be true elevation, and what else is the Critique but this mediation? Does not the Critique lead to the universality of self-consciousness precisely by recognizing in the letter, in the positive, the determination of self-consciousness?

*) I have had to hear harsh words for this reason, I have even had to hear that I lack a sense of truth because of my critique of the Fourth Gospel, and that the Critique is nothing more than a subjective itch. I forgive those who made such accusations against me and console myself with the purity of heart which is the most beautiful gift of the Critique.

xxi

It is further demanded that one should be content with having thoughts “about” the letter. But does this “about” not become unmediated again if it is not justified by passing through the letter? And is this passage possible if the determinacy of the given is not abolished as such? Having thoughts about the positive is not even possible in the sense that the positive could simply exist in and of itself in this activity. In some way, it must be related to the universality of self-consciousness or thought that has thoughts about it, this relationship must become a comparison between the universality of self-consciousness and the determinacy of the given – but does this comparison not cease to be external only when the given proves itself as thought and its determinacy through its inner dialectic?

On the one hand, the critique is the final act of a specific philosophy that must free itself from a positive determinacy that still restricts its true universality – and therefore, on the other hand, it is the presupposition without which it cannot elevate itself to the ultimate universality of self-consciousness.

Even philosophically educated people who condescend to point to the changing critical principles, hypotheses, and so on, as if this gesture alone suffices to reveal the matter of critique from the outset as mere arbitrariness, should remember the standpoint of consciousness that holds philosophy at bay with the same comfort. The critique also has a rational goal, whose secret power determined and regulated its historical movement and development, even if it appeared to be still so unregulated and confused. That was the goal the critique aimed for from the beginning, namely, to find the trace of self-consciousness in the Gospels, and the hypotheses it has produced so far differ only insofar as they restrict the share of self-consciousness in the composition of the Gospels more or less, i.e., allowing the content to be given more or less, whether through an original Gospel or through tradition or through the oral reports of an eyewitness. At the end of the development, the positive or mysterious barriers that were supposed to separate the content and self-consciousness will collapse, and the separated will unite.

xxii

It could be that some may miss the consideration of external evidence for the early origin of the Gospels. Everything in due time! At the end of the investigation, we will provide a history of the Gospels, attempting to determine the historical presuppositions and the environment in which the Gospels originated, and when we come to learn about the fates that the Gospels experienced in the early centuries of the Church, then those testimonies will be addressed early enough, or rather, where the place is suitable. It would indeed be impolite to ask the Gospels for their passport before we have made their acquaintance and learned about their inner character.*)

*) I am almost ashamed; I am even ashamed to say it in a footnote in a preface. There is a pride that is a moral duty. But there are also weak friends of truth to whom a weak word can be spoken. Against them, one becomes weak oneself. I want to say nothing more than that I wish and therefore ask that the judgment of my book be reserved until I have spoken for myself, that is, until I have developed, brought about, and thereby proved the result. I know that the apologist will not grant my request, but I have earned the full right to say to him that if he speaks against me, he must do so with the same thoroughness with which I have examined and tested his categories—and what effort and patience that required! The apologetic direction, its representatives, and the state authority that has favored its direction and condemned philosophical criticism to a slow death in its spirit have denied me, I do not know for how long, that outer tranquility of life that a writer must enjoy if he is to have the good fortune of withholding the first volume of his work in his desk until he submits the result, along with the last volume, to public judgment. But this terrible pressure, in a footnote I may say, has strengthened me, and I hope that the benevolent critic will also see in the beginning of the book that the threads are being held fast and that the fabric will already be finished by the end. Moreover, I ask for patience! Although contradictions may seem to emerge in the beginning—yet it would be poor work that did not move through internal, living contradictions—eventually they will find their solution. Even if the negation may still appear too bold and far-reaching in this volume, we remind ourselves that the truly positive can only be born when negation has been taken seriously and universally. The positive that was assumed as such is already limited by this. When the wheat grain decays, does a single atom remain firm and dry in the currency? But the decay of the letter can also only be completed when it is set in motion and flow by the “spirit” that is certain of its matter, and when this motion is guided and caused by the content that emerges from the decay itself. How can criticism go so far as to consume all positivity and finally even negate the two-thousand-year-old notion of messianic expectations of the Jews if it is not certain that it will come to a view of the personality of Jesus and an understanding of the power of the Christian principle, which has not yet existed? In the end, it will be shown that only the most consuming criticism of the world will teach the creative power of Jesus and his principle.

xxiii

 

A certain standpoint, known to everyone as the most widespread, in possession of external power and occupying the magnificent and correct middle ground between extremes, exhausts itself in prophecies of what is to come. It is a standing expression on this standpoint that our time resembles the years before the Reformation and “belongs to the epochs which, through dissolution and crisis, prepare a new creation.” It is true that our time is already under the rule of a new star which wants to be found and recognized in its law; but “true and unfortunate” is that on that standpoint nothing has yet emerged that would look like the harbinger of a new time. The apologetic standpoint prophesies only because it senses its end; but it cannot create, and therefore cannot dissolve.

xxiv

But if we only plow through the soil of history with criticism, the fresh scent of life will rise from the furrows, and the old soil that has lain fallow long enough will develop new generative power. If only criticism has made us pure in heart, free and ethical again, then the new will not be far off. But do we want more than that? Is it not just the development of the liberated self-consciousness that is needed?

March 1841.

The author.

 

Table of Contents

First Volume

 

Preface………………………………………………………………………………………….. v—xxiv

First Section

The Birth and Childhood of Jesus…………. 1—141

• 1. The Genealogy of Jesus from David…………………………………………….. 1
• 2. The Birth of John the Baptist…………………………………………….. 23
• 3. The Supernatural Conception of Jesus…………………………………………….. 35
• 4. The Visit of Mary to Elizabeth…………………………………………….. 47
• 5. The Messiah as a Child………………………………………………………………….. 54
• 6. The Origin of the Gospel History of Luke………………….. 68
• 7. The Angel’s Message to Joseph…………………………………………………… 84
• 8. The Star of the Magi……………………………………………………………… 92
• 9. The Flight to Egypt and Settlement in Nazareth…………….. 106
• 10. The Origin of the Gospel History of Matthew…………………….121
• 11. Chronological Note……………………………………………………………. 128

Second Section

The Preparations for the Public Appearance of Jesus……………………….. 142—244

• 12. The Work of the Baptist……………………………………………. 142—182

1. 1. 1. The Locality…………………………………………………………………….. 142
      2. The Dress and Food of the Baptist………………………….. 159
      3. The Work of the Runner according to Matthew’s account………………… 154
      4. according to Luke’s account…………………………………………. 161
      5. according to Mark’s account………………………………………. 170

• 13. The Baptism of Jesus……………………………………………………………. 182—212

1. 1. 1. The Time…………………………………………………………………………….. 182
      2. The Refusal of the Runner…………………………………………… 181
      3. The Abstract Necessity of Jesus’ Baptism……………… 194
      4. The Inner Purpose of Jesus’ Baptism…………………………………. 200
      5. Doubts about the Historical Credibility of the Biblical Account…………… 202

• 14. The Temptation of Jesus………………………………………………………….. 213-224

1. 1. 1. The Biblical Account……………………………………………………… 2I3
      2. The Temptation Story as a Parable………………………… 224
      3. The Temptation as an Internal Event…………………. 226
      4. The Temptation as an Inner Struggle………………………………. 233
      5. The Origin of the Temptation Story…………………….. 238

Third Section.

The Beginning of Jesus’ Public Ministry…. 245–298

• 15. Jesus’ Return to Galilee………………………………………… 245—249
• 16. Jesus’ First Appearance and Preaching in Galilee…. 250—264

1. 1. 1. The Account of Matthew………………………………………… 250
      2. The Account of Luke……………………………………………………. 264
      3. The Account of Mark……………………………………………….. 262

• 17. The Calling of the First Four Apostles………………………………. 265—285

1. 1. 1. The Account of Matthew…………………………………………….. 265
      2. The Account of Luke……………………………………………………. 266
      3. The Account of Mark……………………………………………….. 278

• 18. Transition to the Sermon on the Mount…………………………………. 283—298

1. 1. 1. The Account of Matthew……………………………………………… 283
      2. The Account of Luke……………………………………………………. 286
      3. The Mountain…………………………………………………………………… 290
      4. Criticisms………………………………………………………………………. 293

Fourth Section.

The Sermon on the Mount………………………… 299—390

• 19. The Entrance…………………………………………………………’…………….. 299—321

1. 1. 1. The Beatitudes……………………………………………………….. 299
      2. Salt of the Earth………………………………………………………. 311
      3. Light of the World……………………………………………………….. 319

• 20. The New Law…………………………………………………………………… 322—353

1. 1. 1. The Introduction and the Theme…………………………………. 324
      2. The Continuing Value of the Law…………………………………. 332
      3. Murder………………………………………………………………………… 334
      4. Adultery………………………………………………………………………. 340
      5. Divorce……………………………………………………………………….. 341
      6. Oaths…………………………………………………………………………… 343
      7. Retaliation…………………………………………………………………… 346
      8. Love for Enemies………………………………………………………….. 348

• 21. The Righteousness of the Hypocrites………………………………………….. 353—363

1. 1. 1. Almsgiving and Fasting………………………………………………. 355
      2. Prayer………………………………………………………………………….. 357

• 22. True Concern……………………………………………………………….. 364—371

1. 1. 1. The Concern for Heavenly Things………………………………….. 365
      2. The Worship of God and Mammon……………………………… 368
      3. The Inner Light……………………………………………………………… 369

• 23. Unconnected Sayings……………………………………………………….. 371—385

1. 1. 1. Judgment……………………………………………………………………… 371
      2. Removing the Speck……………………………………………………. 375
      3. Prayer and Answered Prayer………………………………………… 377
      4. The Law and the Prophets…………………………………………… 380
      5. The Narrow Gate…………………………………………………………… 381
      6. False Prophets…………………………………………………………….. 382

• 24. The Epilogue……………………………………………………………………………………. 385
• 25. A Look Back at the Fourth Gospel………………………………………… 387

Appendix.

The Messianic Expectations of the Jews concerning Jesus…… 391—416