The Influence of Strauss

[EarlyActs]

D F Strauss was a Lutheran theologian in the early 1800s who wrote a study of Jesus. The position taken was that while there was a 'Jesus,' the gospel narratives were mostly addition of myth by the writers to depict a Messiah-sized figure. The book was 800 pages. It also has a wide cultural impact in that it was translated by Mary Evans (writing as George Eliot), the very capable novelist who was a renegade from her evangelical roots. This affected huge swaths of London society. This partly resulted in neo-orthodoxy, in which the historical truth about Jesus does not matter, but the 'meaning' is valuable for us today.

In short, Strauss concluded that the writers employed violence against history to establish Messiahship.

As there is no index, and this thread is a work in progress, I have not found his comments on the late Jn 2 passage about raising the temple in 3 days. It is not just that there is such a statement there about his resurrection, but that there is a conscious explanation of who understood what and when about such sayings; the disciples heard this, but did not understand it until after the resurrection.

Such a passage would be key to unlocking the latency or time-bound 'discoveries' of the apostles. Or why Jesus warned against people getting too excited about his being known as Messiah.

There are some balanced passages (Strauss even used that term about the spiritual orientation of Jesus' Messianic kingdom--as opposed to that which the people/zealots sought). Somehow Ms. Evans missed this and became a proponent of a modern return to the land of Israel in her time, sometimes siding her with evangelicals otherwise completely opposed to her. This is found in her novel DANIEL DERONDA. Or maybe she decided the faith definition of his kingdom was a Christian addition, and decided to go for the 'real' one.

Strauss believes the Messiah status is "late" in the gospels. Again, without his dealing with the end of Jn 2, or similar, it becomes difficult to know if he knows whether there might be a 'personal growth' element to the narratives; that the disciples--but not Jesus--grew into the proper understanding, climaxing in the 40 days of teaching after the resurrection, and then their missions. Statements about what the disciples believed along the way are not the solidified Christian doctrine of early Acts and Paul. And they do not mean that Jesus was stumbling along himself.

Another interest of mine is especially about early Mark where there are so many references to the surge of crowds following Jesus making him change plans, hide, escape, and still being found. This dimension is extra to the text and is a form of proof other than the simple say-so of the writer. If it did not occur, we would have huge doubts about the say-so. In addition is the 'at-will' miracle of Jesus in ch 2, about a paralyzed man. "Which is easier--to say 'be forgiven' or 'rise and walk away'?" Both features (the crowds and this miracle) are meant to gain the readers' understanding that they are dealing with ordinary actual events, not those 'treated violently' by later writers as though Jesus were unhistorical.

 

[Josheb]

D F Strauss was a Lutheran theologian in the early 1800s who wrote a study of Jesus. The position taken was that while there was a 'Jesus,' the gospel narratives were mostly addition of myth by the writers to depict a Messiah-sized figure. The book was 800 pages. It also has a wide cultural impact in that it was translated by Mary Evans (writing as George Eliot), the very capable novelist who was a renegade from her evangelical roots. This affected huge swaths of London society. This partly resulted in neo-orthodoxy, in which the historical truth about Jesus does not matter, but the 'meaning' is valuable for us today.....................

A couple of liberals wrote their own version of the gospel. There is nothing orthodox (neo- or otherwise) about that.

Another interest of mine is.......

Interest is one thing. Considering liberalism orthodox is another. I can appreciate a diverse approach to theology and/or philosophy. I read everything from the Jesus Seminar to Reconstruction Dominionism. For those who can do that while maintaining truth as articulated and measured by the scriptures themselves (and not what this theologian or that theologian makes what is stated say), the diversity can be very informative regarding the substance of truth, but when adherence to what is correct is diluted or abandoned the "information" ceases to be information.

It is dross.

Another liberal theologian, Albert Schweitzer, said Strauss' views, "filled in the death-certificates of a whole series of explanations which, at first sight, have all the air of being alive, but are not really so." and Jesus Seminar fellow Marcus Borg said, "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."

"True myth" is an oxymoron.

 

[Josheb]

Historically, the 9th century saw two enormous divisions in theology. One was the restoration movement characterized by the Campbellites, Millerites, Brethren, CoC, SDA, JWs, LDS, and most importantly the Darbyites and the rise of Dispensationalism. From them came a huge explosion of sectarianism, each claiming to be the true Church preaching authentic New Testament era theology. The other was Liberal Theology, which had its roots in German philosophers.

Neither was orthodox.

 

[Fred]

Historically, the 9th century saw two enormous divisions in theology. One was the restoration movement characterized by the Campbellites, Millerites, Brethren, CoC, SDA, JWs, LDS, and most importantly the Darbyites and the rise of Dispensationalism. From them came a huge explosion of sectarianism, each claiming to be the true Church preaching authentic New Testament era theology. The other was Liberal Theology, which had its roots in German philosophers.

Neither was orthodox.

19th century.
But good points.

 

[Josheb]

19th century.
But good points.

Yep. Timed out so I couldn't correct it. Many Christians today think the things they believe have always been believed but that's not the case. The entire Dispensational viewpoint, its hermeneutic, and practical application is less than 200 years old AND very, very different from a big bunch of stuff Christians have believed since the New Testament. The same holds true of liberalism. I was riding an elevator with a county social worker one day who knows I'm a Christian and she asked me if I'd seen a recent PBS special of Jesus (which I had watched). She was amazed when I told her most of it was not what Christianity teaches and that it was something called Gnosticism, a very common religious belief that held knowledge was the way to enlightenment and salvation. She listened and asked questions, finally reporting she had no idea there was a difference. I had a pastor who lived next door to me who, due to our many theological conversations, gave me a book written by Spong. He thought it was the best thing since sliced bread and when I informed him Spong was influenced by the Jesus Seminar and Spong was influenced by the likes of John Dominic Crosson, Marcus Bork, Robert Funk, and gave him the history dating back through Schweitzer, and the secular philosophies of Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, etc. he was (like the social worker) amazed. He reported having no idea Spong's views weren't orthodox or historical. I recommended Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism." (note: pdf file) Sadly, to my knowledge he never read it. I think he thought Spong "hip" (or whatever the newest vernacular for that might be).

I, personally, was shocked to learn what I believed was not what all Christians believe, was enormously different than what Christian thought, doctrine, and practice had held to for millennia, and so different that the two are irreconcilable; in many ways they both cannot be true at the same time. That is what started me on my fascination with theology. I do not want to believe things that are not true.

 

[Fred]

I had a pastor who lived next door to me who, due to our many theological conversations, gave me a book written by Spong. He thought it was the best thing since sliced bread and when I informed him Spong was influenced by the Jesus Seminar and Spong was influenced by the likes of John Dominic Crosson, Marcus Bork, Robert Funk, and gave him the history dating back through Schweitzer, and the secular philosophies of Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, etc. he was (like the social worker) amazed. He reported having no idea Spong's views weren't orthodox or historical.

I remember reading two of his books decades ago. Spong denied so much about Christ that I am amazed Christians would think he is a Christian.

 

[Josheb]

I remember reading two of his books decades ago. Spong denied so much about Christ that I am amazed Christians would think he is a Christian.

Strauss was an early precursor to the kind of views Spong held. He tried to straddle a middle ground between myth and truth (and the authority of scripture). He was influential for a season but by the time the substance of his views waned others had taken one their own ability to influence theology for the sake of liberal thought.