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
As a matter of fact, the plan of the Life of Jesus arose during Strauss’s
intercourse with Vatke, to whom he felt himself strongly drawn. Moreover,
what was first sketched out was not primarily the plan of a Life of Jesus,
but that of a history of the ideas of primitive Christianity, intended to
serve as a standard by which to judge ecclesiastical dogma. The Life of
Jesus was originally designed, it might almost be said, as a mere prologue
to this work, the plan of which was subsequently carried out under the
title, “Christian Theology in its Historical Development and in its
Antagonism with Modern Scientific Knowledge” (published in 1840‐1841).
When in the spring of 1832 he returned to Tübingen to take up the position
of “Repetent”(31) in the theological college (_Stift_), these plans were
laid on the shelf in consequence of his pre‐occupation with philosophy,
and if things had gone according to Strauss’s wishes, they would perhaps
never have come to fulfilment. The “Repetents” had the right to lecture
upon philosophy. Strauss felt himself called upon to come forward as an
apostle of Hegel, and lectured upon Hegel’s logic with tremendous success.
Zeller, who attended these lectures, records the unforgettable impression
which they made on him. Besides championing Hegel, Strauss also lectured
upon Plato, and upon the history of modern philosophy. These were three
happy semesters.
“In my theology,” he writes in a letter of 1833,(32) “philosophy occupies
such a predominant position that my theological views can only be worked
out to completeness by means of a more thorough study of philosophy, and
this course of study I am now going to prosecute uninterruptedly and
without concerning myself whether it leads me back to theology or not.”
Further on he says: “If I know myself rightly, my position in regard to
theology is that what interests me in theology causes offence, and what
does not cause offence is indifferent to me. For this reason I have
refrained from delivering lectures on theology.”
The philosophical faculty was not altogether pleased at the success of the
apostle of Hegel, and wished to have the right of the “Repetents” to
lecture on philosophy curtailed. The latter, however, took their stand
upon the tradition. Strauss was desired to intermit his lectures until the
matter should be settled. He would have liked best to end the situation by
entering the philosophical faculty. The other “Repetents,” however, begged
him not to do so, but to continue to champion their rights. It is possible
also that obstacles were placed in the way of his plan by the
philosophical faculty. However that may be, it was in any case not carried
through. Strauss was forced back upon theology.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account