Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zwaarddijk · 05-29-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

back to Witherington: if he did not say what the Wiki article repors him as saying, but you keep insisting that that he did, especially when it's clear that you haven't read Witherington, then we have good reason to believe that you are not a trustworthy reporter of what you claim people say

It is legitimate in discussion on a forum such as this to cite Wikipedia as a source. Of course people should exercise caution in use of Wikipedia, as is well known. I simply said that the Wikipedia article provides an overview of the topic and referenced some of its key content. It is useful then to examine the accuracy of this article against the primary sources, as you have helpfully done.

I was perfectly trustworthy in my citation of Wikipedia, and made no pretense to anything more, recognising that as a publicly editable source it is not always reliable. I provided a reliable citation of Wikipedia's comment about Schweitzer, but you elide from this into an assertion that I am vouching for its accuracy, and further that I asserted Schweitzer's "futility" view was expressed in his Quest book. I did not say that. As well you suggest regarding Witherington that I "keep insisting that that he did" say what he is cited as saying, when I have made no such assertion, and then you use this false "keep insisting" allegation as grounds to malign my trustworthiness. Witherington may or may not say what he is cited as saying, but pardon me if I don't trust you as a guide to that. Unpacking summary comments on such topics is not helped by leaping to partisan accusations about trustworthiness.

Oh, bullshit. You made it pretty clear you thought his criticism sounded a lot like "Christian apologetism", and that you'd have none of it (until he provided a restatement of why you were wrong to do so). It's good you have it in you to admit you were wrong, though.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-29-2013, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Reconsidering Albert Schweitzer

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1864

Quote:

The Futility of ‘Historical Jesus’ Studies

In this second conclusion, Schweitzer boldly demands a moratorium on all further efforts to achieve a scholarly, historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus; He claims that his research has proved the futility of all such attempts... The book is actually a summary of the miseries of the "life of Jesus" movement, concluding with a trumpet call to scholars to renounce all further attempts at defining "the historical Jesus" and to return to the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels

You seem not to know the difference (or make any distinction) between a secondary summary of what Schweitzer said and a quotation from a work by Schweitzer. You also seem to be unaware that this webpage (from 1975) is woefully out of date.

It's claim that

Quote:

... this [2nd] edition [of The Quest] was never translated into English, although Henry Clark tried to remedy the lack by translating all the conclusion’s new material in an appendix to his book The Ethical Mysticism of Albert Schweitzer (1962).

is belied by the publication in 2001 of an English translation of the complete text of the 9th German edition of The Quest (which is virtually the same as the 1913 edition).

Jeffrey

Robert Tulip · 05-29-2013, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Oh, bullshit. You made it pretty clear you thought his criticism sounded a lot like "Christian apologetism", and that you'd have none of it (until he provided a restatement of why you were wrong to do so). It's good you have it in you to admit you were wrong, though.

Thanks Zwaarddijk, glad to see you are here to keep me on my toes.

I prefer if when you attempt to quote me you do not make up words. My term was "apologist". What we have here is an apparent apologist who jumps on the slightest thing to attempt to discredit an argument as untrustworthy. Jeffrey has plenty of form in this regard, as readers of his comments can see for themselves. Let's hope he doesn't end up with egg on his face here.

I was not in the slightest wrong in what I was doing, although I freely admitted - prior to what you say - that such sources need checking.

Before Jeffrey's "restatement" I said "You are welcome to edit it if it is wrong." So far we only have Jeffrey Gibson's say-so that wikipedia is wrong. Maybe Jeffrey is right but at this stage I would bet against it. His latest rejoinder to Iskander looks woeful.

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1864 Reconsidering Albert Schweitzer by David L. Dungan is a good find. I have not yet read it through myself, but as Iskander pointed out, contrary to Jeffrey's shot from the hip, it states "

Quote:

Originally Posted by David L. Dungan

Scholars have tended to ignore the final chapter of the book, assuming it to be no more than the customary pious ending to a scholarly attack on Jesus and the church. There is little awareness that Schweitzer articulated in this conclusion his central motivation for writing the book. To be sure, Schweitzer stated it in such terse and abbreviated fashion in the first edition that few could grasp it. It was only in the second edition, which appeared six years later, that he spelled out his intentions in considerable detail. But this edition was never translated into English, although Henry Clark tried to remedy the lack by translating all the conclusion’s new material in an appendix to his book The Ethical Mysticism of Albert Schweitzer (1962). In this second conclusion, Schweitzer boldly demands a moratorium on all further efforts to achieve a scholarly, historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus; He claims that his research has proved the futility of all such attempts, and in any case, such studies are not what the modern world or Christianity needs.

So, the question is far from resolved as to whether Wikipedia accurately cites this "futility" allegation. This essay gives a solid case that Schweitzer did in fact consider scholarly, historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus to be futile, as of course it is since Jesus was invented.

DCHindley · 05-31-2013, 08:02 AM

Robert,

I'm taking my 15 minute union mandated mid morning break to say: When Conservative Christian writers/apologists assert that Schweitzer showed the futility of the search for the Historical Jesus, they are not really speaking about what Schweitzer says as much as complaining about postmodern "relativity."

Have you taken the time to actually read Schweitzer's Quest? Well I have read all of his books, and what he consistently does is point out methodological flaws in the works of famous critics of the bible and early Christian history. However, Schweitzer readily delights when their work advances the issue at hand despite their flaws. That is a far cry from him rejecting as futile any search for a historical Jesus.

Have you ever read anything by David L. Dungan? In A History of the Synoptic Problem he pretty clearly presents a methodology that is suspicious of liberal, and especially postmodern, literary scholarship on this subject.

Dungan understands how liberal and postmodern thought had developed (he pins the start of these trends on the work of Baruch Spinoza) as inevitable but unfortunate products of their times. He sees the wholesale application of these methods in modern times as a kind of tragedy that has overshadowed the faith perspective, which he considers much more important.

So, when a conservative Christian oriented article says Schweitzer considered the search for a historical Jesus "futile" they are assuming an unstated premise, that the search for a historical Jesus is irrelevant when talking about the Christ of faith.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1864 Reconsidering Albert Schweitzer by David L. Dungan is a good find. I have not yet read it through myself, but as Iskander pointed out, contrary to Jeffrey's shot from the hip, it states "

Quote:

Originally Posted by David L. Dungan

Scholars have tended to ignore the final chapter of the book, assuming it to be no more than the customary pious ending to a scholarly attack on Jesus and the church. There is little awareness that Schweitzer articulated in this conclusion his central motivation for writing the book. To be sure, Schweitzer stated it in such terse and abbreviated fashion in the first edition that few could grasp it. It was only in the second edition, which appeared six years later, that he spelled out his intentions in considerable detail. But this edition was never translated into English, although Henry Clark tried to remedy the lack by translating all the conclusion’s new material in an appendix to his book The Ethical Mysticism of Albert Schweitzer (1962). In this second conclusion, Schweitzer boldly demands a moratorium on all further efforts to achieve a scholarly, historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus; He claims that his research has proved the futility of all such attempts, and in any case, such studies are not what the modern world or Christianity needs.

So, the question is far from resolved as to whether Wikipedia accurately cites this "futility" allegation. This essay gives a solid case that Schweitzer did in fact consider scholarly, historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus to be futile, as of course it is since Jesus was invented.

Iskander · 05-31-2013, 08:40 AM

I have in front of me a book I have read, The quest for a historical Jesus, but I will use a copy online

In the concluding chapter XX, Results, he writes

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

We are experiencing what Paul experienced. In the very moment when we were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than men had ever come before, and were already stretching out our hands to draw Him into our own time, we have been obliged to give up the attempt and acknowledge our failure in that paradoxical saying: "If we have known Christ after the flesh yet henceforth know we Him no more." And further we must be prepared to find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion.

And ends the book thus

Quote:

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is

.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Robert,

I'm taking my 15 minute union mandated mid morning break to say: When Conservative Christian writers/apologists assert that Schweitzer showed the futility of the search for the Historical Jesus, they are not really speaking about what Schweitzer says as much as complaining about postmodern "relativity."...

What you say does not make much sense. Many Persons must have read what Schweitzer wrote. It is most absurd to suggest that only Christian writers/apologists would show that Schweitzer's futility in the search for the Historical Jesus.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer.

Quote:

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. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence according to Schweitzer.

Toto · 05-31-2013, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you say does not make much sense. Many Persons must have read what Schweitzer wrote. It is most absurd to suggest that only Christian writers/apologists would show that Schweitzer's futility in the search for the Historical Jesus.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer.

Quote:

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. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence according to Schweitzer.

You would find other quotes that give a different view:

Quote:

The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. The work which historical theology thought itself bound to carry out, and which fell to pieces just as it was nearing completion, was only the brick facing of the real immovable historical foundation which is independent of any historical comfirmation or justification.

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

Horatio Parker · 05-31-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You would find other quotes that give a different view:

Quote:

The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. The work which historical theology thought itself bound to carry out, and which fell to pieces just as it was nearing completion, was only the brick facing of the real immovable historical foundation which is independent of any historical comfirmation or justification.

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

Schweitzer allows for the possibility of an HJ albeit not the gospel J (based on these quotes - I've only read his book on Bach and that was long ago). Obviously Schweitzer's idea of a historical foundation can accommodate a purely MJ approach, since HJ is even less approachable through history than MJ is through spirituality.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you say does not make much sense. Many Persons must have read what Schweitzer wrote. It is most absurd to suggest that only Christian writers/apologists would show that Schweitzer's futility in the search for the Historical Jesus.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer.

Quote:

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. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence according to Schweitzer.

You would find other quotes that give a different view:

Quote:

The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. The work which historical theology thought itself bound to carry out, and which fell to pieces just as it was nearing completion, was only the brick facing of the real immovable historical foundation which is independent of any historical comfirmation or justification.

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

Your quote has no effect on the fact that Schweitzer admitted Jesus of Nazareth had no existence.

Schweitzer reinforces that Jesus of Nazareth had NO existence by publicly declaring that Jesus is either figure of Fiction or a Figure of Faith.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Quote:

He will be 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....

Jesus of Nazareth was never a figure of history--either a figure of fiction or a figure of faith.

DCHindley · 05-31-2013, 12:04 PM

Iskander,

Taking a few moments from my union mandated 15 minute afternoon break, I have bolded the passage from Chapter XX of Schweitzer's Quest that answer the question of what he thinks about a historical Jesus.

When he acknowledges that critics were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than men had ever come before, this certainly suggests that he felt we were incrementally achieving the goal of knowing Jesus as he really was (this was before postmodernism questioned whether it was possible to really "know him as he actually was" as opposed to "how we think he was").

However, when it comes to making Jesus relevant to modern times, that is the Christ of faith as an object of religion, knowing what he actually was becomes a hinderance, because the reconstructed Jesus is incongruent with the Jesus of faith as depicted in the Gospels and Pauline epistles.

If anything, this suggests that the Christ of faith is not the real Jesus but an object of religious devotion. Schweitzer was at heart a liberal Christian, and liberal Christianity emphasizes the social aspects of the Gospel. Hence he ultimately decided to complete his life as the operator of a medical mission healing the sick. FWIW, Schweitzer had a heck of a time finding a missionary body that would fund his missionary ambitions. You will note that he was not known for preaching the born-again Gospel as a missionary.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I have in front of me a book I have read, The quest for a historical Jesus, but I will use a copy online

In the concluding chapter XX, Results, he writes

Quote:

We are experiencing what Paul experienced. In the very moment when we were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than men had ever come before, and were already stretching out our hands to draw Him into our own time, we have been obliged to give up the attempt and acknowledge our failure in that paradoxical saying: "If we have known Christ after the flesh yet henceforth know we Him no more." And further we must be prepared to find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.