us himself must already
before his death, and as Matthew too zealously adds, once more after the
resurrection also, have enjoined this journey on the disciples. But the
farther these narratives were propagated by tradition, the more must the
difference between the locality of the resurrection itself and that of
the appearance of the risen one be allowed to fall out of sight as
inconvenient; and since the locality of the death was not transferable,
the appearances were gradually placed in the same locality as the
resurrection,--in Jerusalem, which, as the more brilliant theatre and
the seat of the first Christian church, was especially appropriate for
them."[65]

The ascension is claimed as a myth founded upon the Old Testament
precedents of the translation of Enoch and the ascension of Elijah, and
the pagan apotheosis of Hercules and Romulus.

The last part of Strauss' work is a dissertation on the dogmatic import
of the life of Jesus. Here this merciless critic tries to prove that,
though the belief of the church concerning Christ be thus uprooted by
the theory of myths, nothing truly valuable is destroyed. He declares it
his purpose "to re-establish dogmatically that which has been destroyed
critically." He holds that all his criticism is purely independent of
Christian faith; for, "The supernatural birth of Christ, his miracles,
his resurrection and ascension, remain eternal truths, whatever doubts
may be cast on their reality as historical facts." Thus, reliance is
placed upon a difference between the import of criticism and christian
faith--which subterfuge proved a broken reed when the masses read this
mythical interpretation of the life of the Founder of Christianity. In
vain did Strauss say, in the preface to his work, that it was not
designed for the laity, and that if they read it, it must be at their
own hazard. It was published--and therefore the public had a right to
demand an examination. Let him who writes an evil thought never be
deceived by the opinion that only those will read it who cannot be
injured by it. "What is writ, is writ;" and then it is too late to wish
it "worthier."

But the most remarkable feature of the work of Strauss yet remains to be
traced. It was a compilation, and nothing more. Having ransacked every
skeptical writer on the gospel history, he published their views at
length in his _Life of Jesus_. He did not make many quotations. But the
references at the foot of almost every pa