Schweitzer's Historical Quest, Beginnings (Uncle Albert, .05)
On the personal front, the meeting today in English resolved nothing. There was no vote. And issues came up I hadn't considered. Let me tell you, I know who my friends are though. Some gave eloquent defenses of my idea. One in particular, didn't. Time will tell what I do and where I teach. I meet with faculty from our mountain campus later this month; that's 30 minutes from my house, or less.
I need to begin addressing Schweitzer (for my own mental health). I'm sitting in my office hour, and this seems like a good time. This post is 0.5 because I have introductory comments to make before I get specific.
***
First, so many Christians recommend Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus! It's true, he notes how various 19th century scholars made Jesus into a historical persona they felt comfortable with in disregard of any respectful historicism; from what I know of the Jesus Seminar (writing now, long after Schweitzer of course) I also see this criticism can be applied to them. But what else is in Uncle Albert's tome! I think of Yoda's words to Luke Skywalker when Luke says he is not afraid: 'oh, you will be, you will be.'
Schweitzer's book is the place to start when approaching 19th century German higher criticism; it is my first close up exposure to this material. The author also covers nearly everything which had been said about the historical quest up until the book's publication in 1906. And Schweitzer, drawing on Reimarus and Strauss and others, has his own vision of the historical Christ. It is blatantly anti-supernatural, and it is intelligent and formidable. I haven't met a challenge like his yet. And unfortunately, I haven't found myself able to set him aside, simply not find my own solutions. I want to know whether Jesus is God or whether I will rot in my grave without conscious sense. For me, this means looking closely at Schweitzer's position.
Schweitzer sees the gospel Jesus as a product of myth production; the miracles, clearly, never happened. These are ruled out by him a priori, meaning so far, at least, he hasn't tried to defend his belief that miracles are impossible; he takes this for granted as a principle of science and history. Hence, the miracle stories (in general) are not exaggerations of natural phenomena (one critic he cites declares that Jesus 'walked' on water by treading it) they are simply myth productions, untrue stories invented about a great man. Schweitzer cites Strauss, one of the most significant of the higher critics, as the first to make this inroad.
If the miracles didn't happen, what is to be made of the teachings of Christ? His self-exaltations, his belief that he held a unique role in history, that his death had substitionary meaning and that he was returning to judge the world? For Schweitzer, Jesus was simply wrong. I don't think he could be called crazy, but he was deluded, incorrect, about his role in history. Even if well-meaning. Schweitzer, citing Remaurus, believes the oldest strata in the gospel material is eschatological in nature, focused on the end times and on the parousia, or the second coming. He believes Jesus thought the parousia was imminent, more than once, and that he was wrong.
All this deserves a response, but there's more. I had no idea how heavily the gospel of John came under attack in the 19th century. I've never understood why other people prefer other gospels, though I know they do; me, I'm a gospel of John kind of guy. But the criticisms which have been laid against its authority are many! This is whole new issue for me. I've looked at the synoptic problem a little, enough to feel comfortable; I am just getting to know the Johannine criticism. One thing at a time.
The problem of the parousia is an ancient one. It goes back to the very first Christians. My solution has been to say that those Christians, including Paul, were wrong; Jesus was not coming back right away. But why were they wrong? Where did they get this idea? What about the things Jesus himself says? C.S. Lewis actually threw in the towel on this one and said Jesus had no idea when the end of the world was coming; this is a possibility. There's even a verse where Jesus says so. But the problem is thicker than that.
Again, one piece at a time.
One thing I'll say at the outset is that Schweitzer really does choose which parts of the gospel he finds authentic. He goes on and on about Matthew 10:23; when I first read that verse I got so nervous I took a nap. But there are other ways of looking at that passage. I'll get to this, but Schweitzer denies Matthew was written by an apostle or eyewitness; it was composed later using several sources. Huge portions of that book he completely dismisses, but that one verse, oh, boy, that is his proof text that Jesus was deluded about his second coming on earth. Though it is missing from the other synoptic accounts, he beats the drum on that verse for pages. But the Matthean virgin birth, the feeding of the multitude, the resurrection in Matthew, all corruptions. By what standard?
And there I will have to begin next time.
I need to write about this, I really do, for myself. For my own faith. I pray about my doubt, and I don't know what much else I can do. My priest seems fairly academic and may have ideas. I do know that the next book I read will be by an academic Christian who is supporting the gospel record. I owe myself the balance.
t
I need to begin addressing Schweitzer (for my own mental health). I'm sitting in my office hour, and this seems like a good time. This post is 0.5 because I have introductory comments to make before I get specific.
***
First, so many Christians recommend Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus! It's true, he notes how various 19th century scholars made Jesus into a historical persona they felt comfortable with in disregard of any respectful historicism; from what I know of the Jesus Seminar (writing now, long after Schweitzer of course) I also see this criticism can be applied to them. But what else is in Uncle Albert's tome! I think of Yoda's words to Luke Skywalker when Luke says he is not afraid: 'oh, you will be, you will be.'
Schweitzer's book is the place to start when approaching 19th century German higher criticism; it is my first close up exposure to this material. The author also covers nearly everything which had been said about the historical quest up until the book's publication in 1906. And Schweitzer, drawing on Reimarus and Strauss and others, has his own vision of the historical Christ. It is blatantly anti-supernatural, and it is intelligent and formidable. I haven't met a challenge like his yet. And unfortunately, I haven't found myself able to set him aside, simply not find my own solutions. I want to know whether Jesus is God or whether I will rot in my grave without conscious sense. For me, this means looking closely at Schweitzer's position.
Schweitzer sees the gospel Jesus as a product of myth production; the miracles, clearly, never happened. These are ruled out by him a priori, meaning so far, at least, he hasn't tried to defend his belief that miracles are impossible; he takes this for granted as a principle of science and history. Hence, the miracle stories (in general) are not exaggerations of natural phenomena (one critic he cites declares that Jesus 'walked' on water by treading it) they are simply myth productions, untrue stories invented about a great man. Schweitzer cites Strauss, one of the most significant of the higher critics, as the first to make this inroad.
If the miracles didn't happen, what is to be made of the teachings of Christ? His self-exaltations, his belief that he held a unique role in history, that his death had substitionary meaning and that he was returning to judge the world? For Schweitzer, Jesus was simply wrong. I don't think he could be called crazy, but he was deluded, incorrect, about his role in history. Even if well-meaning. Schweitzer, citing Remaurus, believes the oldest strata in the gospel material is eschatological in nature, focused on the end times and on the parousia, or the second coming. He believes Jesus thought the parousia was imminent, more than once, and that he was wrong.
All this deserves a response, but there's more. I had no idea how heavily the gospel of John came under attack in the 19th century. I've never understood why other people prefer other gospels, though I know they do; me, I'm a gospel of John kind of guy. But the criticisms which have been laid against its authority are many! This is whole new issue for me. I've looked at the synoptic problem a little, enough to feel comfortable; I am just getting to know the Johannine criticism. One thing at a time.
The problem of the parousia is an ancient one. It goes back to the very first Christians. My solution has been to say that those Christians, including Paul, were wrong; Jesus was not coming back right away. But why were they wrong? Where did they get this idea? What about the things Jesus himself says? C.S. Lewis actually threw in the towel on this one and said Jesus had no idea when the end of the world was coming; this is a possibility. There's even a verse where Jesus says so. But the problem is thicker than that.
Again, one piece at a time.
One thing I'll say at the outset is that Schweitzer really does choose which parts of the gospel he finds authentic. He goes on and on about Matthew 10:23; when I first read that verse I got so nervous I took a nap. But there are other ways of looking at that passage. I'll get to this, but Schweitzer denies Matthew was written by an apostle or eyewitness; it was composed later using several sources. Huge portions of that book he completely dismisses, but that one verse, oh, boy, that is his proof text that Jesus was deluded about his second coming on earth. Though it is missing from the other synoptic accounts, he beats the drum on that verse for pages. But the Matthean virgin birth, the feeding of the multitude, the resurrection in Matthew, all corruptions. By what standard?
And there I will have to begin next time.
I need to write about this, I really do, for myself. For my own faith. I pray about my doubt, and I don't know what much else I can do. My priest seems fairly academic and may have ideas. I do know that the next book I read will be by an academic Christian who is supporting the gospel record. I owe myself the balance.
t
Comments
I think you are right about the problem of Christ's return. I don't think it is clearly known when it will happen. The early believers certainly didn't know, I don't know. I suppose it is possible that this information was not even known to Jesus at the time He was on earth, but revealed upon his return to his heavenly home. I don't know. Those three words are the hardest for me to admit. But I'm learning to process that it is a major miracle that I am able to comprehend as much of God's garce as I can. The rest are details I suppose. Peace.
thanks for your voice up here. I know I go into these doubt-panics; the next day things don't seem so intense. Whatever. If there was a doubters' anonymous I'd join. I have not actually lost my faith since I placed it in Christ in 2000.
And on miracles, yes, this may be where I first begin working. You just can't have Christianity, or any gospel record worth anything, without them, though Schweitzer tries admirably.
Thanks for your support. And I know that there is no sure answer in this life for most Christians. We live by faith, some with more and some with less.
t