The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede — John Shaqi
The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to WredeSchweitzer, Albert
Religion
The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede
Schweitzer, Albert
Jesus Christ -- Biography -- History and criticism; Jesus Christ -- Historicity
But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes back to
Jesus at all. He Himself baptized no one in His own lifetime, and never
commanded any of His converts to be baptized. So we cannot be sure about
the origin of Baptism, though we can be sure of its meaning. Baptism in
the name of Jesus signified only that Jesus was the Messiah. “For the only
change which the teaching of Jesus made in their religion was that whereas
they had formerly believed in a Deliverer of Israel who was to come in the
future, they now believed in a Deliverer who was already present.”
The “Lord’s Supper,” again, was no new institution, but merely an episode
at the last Paschal Meal of the Kingdom which was passing away, and was
intended “as an anticipatory celebration of the Passover of the New
Kingdom.” A Lord’s Supper in our sense, “cut loose from the Passover,”
would have been inconceivable to Jesus, and not less so to His disciples.
It is useless to appeal to the miracles, any more than to the
“Sacraments,” as evidence for the founding of a new religion. In the first
place, we have to remember what happens in the case of miracles handed
down by tradition. That Jesus effected cures, which in the eyes of His
contemporaries were miraculous, is not to be denied. Their purpose was to
prove Him to be the Messiah. He forbade these miracles to be made known,
even in cases where they could not possibly be kept hidden, “with the sole
purpose of making people more eager to talk of them.” Other miracles,
however, have no basis in fact, but owe their place in the narrative to
the feeling that the miracle‐stories of the Old Testament must be repeated
in the case of Jesus, but on a grander scale. He did no really miraculous
works; otherwise, the demands for a sign would be incomprehensible. In
Jerusalem when all the people were looking eagerly for an overwhelming
manifestation of His Messiahship, what a tremendous effect a miracle would
have produced! If only a single miracle had been publicly, convincingly,
undeniably, performed by Jesus before all the people on one of the great
days of the Feast, such is human nature that all the people would at once
have flocked to His standard.
For this popular uprising, however, He waited in vain. Twice He believed
that it was near at hand. The first time was when He was sending out the
disciples and said to them: “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of
Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt. x. 23). He thought that, at the
preaching of the disciples, the people would flock to Him from every
quarter and immediately proclaim Him Messiah; but His expectation was
disappointed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account