Preface to the Fourth German Edition

Jairus, His Daughter and the Haemorrhaging Woman (Mk 5.21-43; Mt. 9.18-26; Lk. 8.40-56): Research Survey of a Gospel Story about People in Distress

“…However, in the light of similar anecdotes in the New Testament and the early Christian tradition—Strauss thinks of the miracle-working handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul in Acts 19.11-12, Peter’s healing shadow in Acts 5.15 and comparable phenomena in the apocryphal gospels such as the Arabic Infancy Gospel—Strauss claimed that its miraculous claims should not be put in question. He saw no essential difference between the early Christian legendary tales and what we find in the story of the haemorrhaging woman (1836: 2.100; 1860: 510). While he did not entirely rule out a psychological explanation, he thought it equally possible (in fact, more likely) that stories such as these had come into existence long after the events, when later generations retrospectively ascribed such miracles to their holy men.…”

“…14.36; Mk 3.10; 6.56; Lk. 6.19) (Strauss 1836: 2.93-103; 1860: 505-11; see also the popularized account in 1864: 2.71-75; 1879: 192-204). (On the various editions of Strauss’s Life of Jesus , see Harris 1973: 41-57 [first edition], 117-22 [third edition], 200-12 [for the German people].…”

“…Against the critical consensus of the time, Strauss defended the priority of Matthew’s version (‘the earlier and more simple, that of the second and third as a later and more embellished formation of the legend’, 1836: 2.97; 1860: 508) and argued that the other two versions were free elaborations of the first Gospel’s account, Mark’s account being the latest version of the three. Typical of his larger project, Strauss not only firmly rejected the supernatural interpretation of the orthodox, who felt an unease with the spontaneous and unwilled discharge of energy from Jesus’ body, ‘like a charged electric battery, which a mere touch will discharge’ (1836: 2.97; 1860: 508), but he also criticized the attempts of the rationalists to undo the story of its obvious miraculous features, thereby downgrading Jesus to a mere magician or mesmerizer (in 1864: 2.72; 1879: 196, Strauss uses the term thierischer Magnetismus [animal magnetism]). According to Paulus, for instance, the healing of the woman had been accomplished by her state of exaltation.…”

“…According to Paulus, for instance, the healing of the woman had been accomplished by her state of exaltation. ‘When she touched the hem of Jesus she was seized with a violent shuddering in her whole nervous system, which probably caused a sudden contraction of the relaxed vessels’ (Paulus 1830: 1.524-25, 530, quoted by Strauss 1836: 2.99; 1860: 509). However, in the light of similar anecdotes in the New Testament and the early Christian tradition—Strauss thinks of the miracle-working handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul in Acts 19.11-12, Peter’s healing shadow in Acts 5.15 and comparable phenomena in the apocryphal gospels such as the Arabic Infancy Gospel—Strauss claimed that its miraculous claims should not be put in question.…”

“…While he did not entirely rule out a psychological explanation, he thought it equally possible (in fact, more likely) that stories such as these had come into existence long after the events, when later generations retrospectively ascribed such miracles to their holy men. He held that the story contained so many incredible, mythical elements that no historical basis could be detected and accordingly had to be classified as a myth ( Sage ), originating from the popular desire to materialize faith (1836: 2.102-103; 1860: 510-11).…”