LegionOnomaMoi

I've own and have read the entire work in the original German. So are you suggesting that in order to understand what Schweitzer wrote, I need to read an English translation of his words? You are saying that his actual words/language don't convey what he really meant, but someone who else who took his words and translated them understood what he meant better than he?

aa5874

Again, all rhetoric and no substance.

You MUST first read the English translation to find out what it claims before you make unsubstantiated assertions.

You must know that there are professional translators WHO UNDERSTAND GERMAN and ENGLISH.

LegionOnomaMoi

All rhetoric? So because you've read a translation (or so you claim) you understand Schweitzer better than I? Have you read his Die psychiatrische Beurteilung Jesu? How do you explain his MD thesis? Moreover, apart from one line you quoted from Von Reimarus zu Wrede, do you have any evidence for your interpretation of Schweitzer?

Or does your entire argument amount to:

"I haven't read the book but I quoted a line I got from the internet so I know more about the work than you. And if you really want to understand it you have to read a translation like I did because I can't read the original. And I haven't read other things Schweitzer has written so you can't address these."

Because so far, that's all you've said:
1) You've stated I have to read the translation, because somehow that's closer to the original german
2) You've ignored the later works Schweitzer wrote.
3) You don't even seem to have read the entire English translation. You've merely taken a quote out of context without having read the work.

aa5874

Again, you have already ADMITTED that you have NOT read the English translation of Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" so you really had no idea of its contents.

Please read the book and you will see that it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth had NO existence and that he was either Literary Fiction or an Eschatological concept.

Albert Schweitzer's Jesus was considered Spiritual NOT historical and that is PRECISELY why he went on a QUEST for an historical Jesus which he NEVER did find.

thief of fire

This reminds me of that movie, "Found in translation"

LegionOnomaMoi

I've heard people being accused of misunderstanding a text because they read a translation instead of the original, but this is a first.

However, if it makes you feel better, after locating the translation online, I did read the entire last chapter, and (amazingly) it says the same thing the German original says. Schweitzer absolutely considered Jesus historical.

jdboy

Schweitzer says;
"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence."
Schweitzer goes on to explain that the term "historical jesus" will be applied to : "a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception."
I can't post a link

Where do you see Schweitzer claim that jesus existed?

Toto

aa5874 is notorious for refusing to accept the idea that there might be a "historical Jesus" who is not the gospel Jesus.

I think I will put this thread out of its misery.