freigeister

I would like to bring to the attention of those interested in the historical Jesus the name of Constantin Brunner. Brunner (1862-1937) wrote an extremely compelling book on the subject of Christ. In German the title is Unser Christus oder das Wesen des Genies (literally: Our Christ or the essence of genius). The book was translated into English with the title Our Christ: the revolt of the mystical genius.

For a variety of reasons, Brunner has been completely neglected. He is nowhere mentioned in any of the literature on the historical Jesus. There is literally not a single review, synopsis, or assessment of this book. The only evaluation I can find is at Amazon.com where a reader offers this: "Breathtaking; a non-theistic, non-dual approach to the Gospels."

It amazes me that not a single scholar in the field of the historical Jesus has even mentioned Brunner.

Amaleq13

Why don't you give us one of the above right here?

Toto

Amazon link

I don't see any reviews there now, but there are some cheap used copies.

freigeister

Try this. Brunner's book is no. 13.

freigeister

For Brunner, Christ represents the greatest representative of what he calls "die Geistigen". The English translation of this term is hotly debated among Brunnerians. In Our Christ it is given as "the spiritual elite." This spiritual elite is contrasted with what Brunner calls "das Volk", who constitute the vast majority of mankind. Brunner's doctrine of the spiritual elite is essentially a doctrine of genius. Thus he argues that Christ is the greatest of geniuses. Specifically, Christ is the greatest genius of mysticism.
Brunner argues that Christ's conception of what he calls "the Father" corresponds to what Brunner calls "das Denkende". The translation of this term is also debated. In Our Christ it is rendered as "the Cogitant". It corresponds to the formless, imageless essence of being which we attain to through mystical apperception. The spiritual elite are those who have a clear apperception of this essence. Most people have little or no ability or desire to work toward this clarity, adhering instead to a view of the absolute based on their sense impressions. For Brunner, Judaism is in its essence an anti-religion, a protest against religion with its absolutizing of the relative. He juxtaposes priestly and rabbinical to prophetic Judaism, wherein the latter represents the true mystical essence in opposition to the former which represent superstition. Christ is the purest example of this protest, living as he did completely within the clarity of his mystical apperception. Brunner culminates his argument with his own translation of the Shema: "Hear O Israel, Being is our god, Being is one".
As for the Christian religion, Brunner sees it as a process of distortion by which Christ becomes de-Judaized and divinized through the massive influx of Gentiles. Finally, he calls for Jews to reclaim Christ as their own highest exemplar.

Toto

Constantin Brunner

It is not clear what he would have to add to the discussion of the historical Jesus at this point. He seems more relevant to philosophy and the history of ideas. His approach to Jesus appears to be a religious one more than a historical one.

He has a homepage.

From here:

freigeister

He writes about Christ as a historical figure and situates him in the context of the history of Judaism. How is this not germane to the historical Jesus? This is just another example of the baffling tendency of most people to do just about anything to avoid coming to grips with what Brunner says. To say that he treats Christ in a religious as opposed to a historical way is more of the same obfuscatory squid ink. Does Brunner deal with the religious context in which Christ lived? Of course! Does Brunner assimilate Christ to this context? Definitely not! In fact, he construes Christ as existing specifically in protest against this religious context, and indeed against all religious contexts. Is anti-religion then religion? Is black then white?

Toto

I haven't read him yet, so I shouldn't really comment on what he does.

But what are his sources? Is he just reinterpreting the gospels? Does he accept them all without questioning their historical basis? What are his sources for Judaism?

From what you say, I suspect that moderns would not like his ideas about a "spiritual elite," which is politically incorrect these days.

Help us out. Why should we be interested in him?

freigeister

None of the foregoing piques your interest sufficiently? In the end, I am not really trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm simply trying to establish conditions that will allow anyone susceptible to Brunner's ideas to find out about them easily. I am very grateful to all the devotees of Brunner who republished his works and translated them into English. I hope I am building on this effort by using the Internet to disseminate Brunner's ideas.

Fundamental to Brunner's thought is a kind of anti-evangelism. He assumes that most people will remain unmoved by what he has to say. The goal is not to beat people on the head. Instead, it is just to put things out there in a way that is as inoffensive to the majority as possible, but will be findable by the few who are susceptible. This is the practical dimension of his doctrine of the spiritual elite and the multitude: the doctrine will be of interest only to an elite.

Brunner put forward his doctrine of the spiritual elite as a "constructive fiction" that would underlie the human sciences just as the constructive fiction of an indivisible particle underlies physics and chemistry. Brunner's doctrine of the spiritual elite does help to explain some previously inexplicable social and psychological phenomena, Christ not least.

Brunner assumes the basic truthfulness of the gospels. He acknowledges that there are mythical elements, but asks, "what kind of criticism is that, which, because Christ was not a god, denies existence to the man Christ simply on account of the miracles attributed to him by his biographers?" Here is another great quotation on the same topic:

Brunner's authority on Judaism stems from his own vast erudition, as evidenced for example by his commanding ability to cite the Talmud.

Toto

In spite of my pledge not to buy any more books until I read the last batch that I bought online, I ordered a used copy, so in a bit I may be able to say more. (Is there a 12 step program for recovering Amazon shoppers?)

This sounds like a variation on what Will Durant said - that the character of Jesus was so distinctive that no one could have invented him. (Perhaps this is where Durant got the idea.) I think this is plainly incorrect. Every element of Jesus' character can be found in some other source, from the Hebrew scriptures to classical Greek or Hellenistic philosophy and literature. It is not necessary to assume that there was a "great man" behind either the portrait of Jesus in the gospels or the Christian movement.