Heinrich Julius Holtzmann presents the ideal “Life of Jesus” which is a sketch of the public ministry, a critical examination of details, and a full account of the teaching of Jesus.
The credit of having written a life of Christ which is strictly scientific, in its own way very remarkable, and yet foredoomed to failure, belongs to Oskar Holtzmann.
Jesus withdrew from the scene of his early ministry.
Jesus’ action in cursing the fig tree so that it should henceforth bring no fruit to its owner, who was perhaps a poor man … is brought into relation with with the words spoken on the evening before, “The poor you have always with you.”
It becomes clearly apparent that the connection of events can only be carried through at the decisive passages by violent treatment or even by rejection of the Marcan text in the interests of the Marcan hypothesis.
All such transpositions mean violence to the text. It also shows how much reading between the lines is necessary in order to construct a Life of Jesus on the basis of the Marcan hypothesis.
eschatology: the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.
When the disciples in Mark 8 tell Jesus “whom men held him to be” none of them suggest anyone thought of him as Messiah, and this was shortly before Jesus set out for Jerusalem.
While later Christians put so high a value on the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his messiahship, what passages of Mark mention a demand for a sign as proof of his messiahship? Jesus may have aroused Messianic expectations but people failed to understand the correction which Jesus had made by the manner of his entry and his conduct in Jerusalem.
Although the Kingdom of God was at hand, present, Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom of God was both present and future. Alternatively, it may not have been fully present and fully in the future but just a gradual process of approximation in the the present and even in the future. If there is a question about this, note his petition in the Our Father prayer: “thy kingdom come.”
Committing oneself to historical conjectures about the Life of Jesus has a strong contrast by the skepticism of a von Soden and Schmiedel. “It is at once evident,” says Schmiedel, “that the great groups of discourses in Matthew (the Sermon on the Mount, the Seven Parables of the Kingdom, and so forth) were not originally arranged in this order or arranged by Jesus in this order. The order is doubtless due to the Evangelist.
Von Soden pronounced: “In the composition of the discourses, no regard is paid in Matthew to the point of time in the Life of Jesus to which they are attributed.” As early as the Sermon on the Mount, we find references to persecutions [that came later]. In the charge to the Twelve, there are warnings which undoubtedly belong to a later time.
Is there Pauline influence on Mark?
There was not just Mark as the writer of the gospel of Mark, there was Mark and a redactor and that redactor may have ordered the segments in the Life of Jesus. The theology of the primitive church also is an input into the Gospel of Mark.
There has been a downfall of the Gospel of Mark as an historical source. It is evident that “the historical Jesus” is not a purely historical figure, but one which has been artificially transplanted into history.
Albert Schweitzer:
There has been a downfall of the Gospel of Mark as an historical source. It is evident that “the historical Jesus” is not a purely historical figure, but one which has been artificially transplanted into history.”
Steefen to Prof. Ehrman:
How do you explain overcoming the downfall of Mark as an historical source and use that gospel as grounds for an historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth in your book Did Jesus Exist?
Schweitzer discussed the difficulty in forming a Life of Jesus, a biography of Jesus (a life of Christ is foredoomed to failure). With an impossible biography, a critic of the New Testament must admit fully establishing Jesus in history cannot be fully done if his biography cannot be formulated.
Has it been the Dead Sea Scrolls published after Schweitzer’s survey and conclusion that for you has overturned Schweitzer’s assessment? If not that, what has overturned the conclusion that a biography of Jesus cannot be fully formulated?
In addition to Jesus’ foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem being not original to Jesus but a later addition,
“As early as the Sermon on the Mount, we find references to persecutions [that came later]. In the charge to the Twelve, there are warnings which undoubtedly belong to a later time.”
Steefen to Prof. Ehrman:
How do you explain overcoming the downfall of Mark as an historical source and use that gospel as grounds for an historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth in your book Did Jesus Exist?
Schweitzer discussed the difficulty in forming a Life of Jesus, a biography of Jesus (a life of Christ is foredoomed to failure). With an impossible biography, a critic of the New Testament must admit fully establishing Jesus in history cannot be fully done if his biography cannot be formulated.
Has it been the Dead Sea Scrolls published after Schweitzer’s survey and conclusion that for you has overturned Schweitzer’s assessment? If not that, what has overturned the conclusion that a biography of Jesus cannot be fully formulated?
In addition to Jesus’ foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem being not original to Jesus but a later addition,
“As early as the Sermon on the Mount, we find references to persecutions [that came later]. In the charge to the Twelve, there are warnings which undoubtedly belong to a later time.”
Bart
Schweitzer is referring to Wrede’s book on the Messianic Secret (which I posted on a number of times: just search for it), which showed that Mark is not simply a reliable account of what actually happened in the life of Jesus.
Steefen
There is no mention of Wrede up to this point in chapter 18. Schweitzer does not even list him at the beginning of the chapter. He lists Oskar Holtzmann, Paul Schmidt, Otto Schmiedel, Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Gustav Frenssen, Otto Pfleiderer, Albert Kalthoff, Eduard von Hartmann, De Jonge, Wolfgang Kirchbach, Albert Dulk, Paul de Regla, Ernest Bosc.
After the material from which I have drawn my question, the very next page, Wrede is only mentioned in a footnote. Here, Schweitzer argues that Frenssen professes to have covered a wide range of critical investigation but not to Schweitzer’s satisfaction. Frenssen virtually ignored Wrede.
About 20 pages from this footnote, not in Chapter 18 but in Chapter 19, Wrede is discussed for approximately 20 pages.
I look forward to applying your guidance at that point.
The description of Wrede’s book: A ground-breaking academic study of whether or not Jesus actively identified himself as the Messiah, which when first published revolutionised attitudes to the New Testament.
However, that is outside the topic of my question. There must be more to the downfall of Mark as an historical source other than “The Messianic Secret” by Wrede. True, whatever is the complete outline of “the downfall of Mark as an historical source” the result would be “thoroughgoing skepticism” which is part of the topic of Chapter 19 of The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
You say a lot has happened since Schweitzer’s book. It will be interesting to see how/if the gospel of Mark and its failure to produce an acceptable “Life of Jesus” has been redeemed as an historical source.
Robert said
Steefen said
… There is no mention of Wrede up to this point in chapter 18. Schweitzer does not even list him at the beginning of the chapter. …Wrede is mentioned in the very title of the whole book. Anyone familiar with the history of New Testament exegesis, and certainly all of Schweitzer’s readers knew exactly who he was referring to here. It was Wrede, by the way.
Irrelevant and wrong.
All readers know that Schweitzer lists the writers he is discussing in Chapter 18 at the beginning of Chapter 18 and he lists the writers he is discussing in Chapter 19 at the beginning of Chapter 19, Wrede is one of the writers listed and discussed in Chapter 19. All readers knew and know this regardless of what you mistakenly reply. You do not speak for Schweitzer and you do not speak for all readers, past, present, and future of Schweitzer.
You post does not add quality to this thread.
For the last 10 years, modern historical theology has more and more adapted itself to the needs of the man in the street. It becomes more and more confident in its cause, and has come to believe that the wrold’s salvation depends in no small measure upon the spreading of its own “assured results” broadcast among the people.
German theology wrestles with Jesus of Nazareth and will not let Him go until Jesus blesses German theology.
Jesus of Nazareth will not suffer Himself to be modernized. As an historic figure, He refuses to be detached from His own time. He has no answer for the question, “Tell us Thy name in our speech and for our day!” The historic Jesus and the Germanic spirit cannot be brought together except by an act of historic violence which in the end injures both religion and history. The consequence is that it creates the historical Jesus in its own image, so that it is not the modern spirit influenced by the Spirit of Jesus, but the Jesus of Nazareth constructed by modern historical theology that is set to work upon our race.
– Albert Schweitzer
= = =
The book here translated is offered to the English-speaking public in the belief that it sets before thenm, as no other book has ever done, the history of the struggle which the best-equipped intellects of the modern world have gone through in endeavoring to realize for themselves the historical personality of our Lord.
From the Preface by F. C. Burkitt, Cambridge, 1910.
Robert
Oskar Holtzmann. Das Messianitätsbewußtsein Jesu und sine neueste Bestreitung. Vortrag. 1902. 26 p. Gegen Wrede.
Again, I’ll translate for you: The Messianic Consciousness of Jesus and its Most Recent Disputation. Lecture. 1902. 26 pages. Against Wrede.
Steefen
The Messianic Consciousness of Jesus and Its Most Recent Disputation {Against Wrede} by Oskar Holtzmann is not what Schweitzer said was foredoomed to failure. Christus by Oskar Holtzmann was foredoomed to failure. Again, your input is irrelevant to the discussion and wrong.
“After reading the 42 questions with which he introduces his narrative [in Christus (Mainz, 1903, 152 pages], one might suppose that Oskar Holtzmann was well aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus and intended to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work proceeds more and more the role of an apologist.” – Albert Schweitzer
Schweitzer believed without question there was a historical Jesus. He did not believe everything in the gospels was myth. He was just saying (as Bart recently explained) that it was wrong to think you could excise the supernatural stuff from Mark then say “Here’s what really happened.” It would take a lot more cross-comparing of all available sources, put into context with the larger world at the time, to arrive at a more objective answer as to who Jesus was, and what he did and believed.
Robert
Wrede was in the title of the Schweitzer’s work.
Steefen
Irrelevant. Not important. If a previous title or a title different than “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” or “Surveying Scholars but Wrede is the Most Important Scholar” is explained in the Preface or Introduction of the book it might be interesting, slightly relevant, and slightly important.
As already mentioned, Schweitzer directly devotes thought to Wrede in Chapter 19 (not the subject matter of this thread and neither is the book as a whole or the title of the whole book) and that is where Wrede is more relevant, more important than he is in Chapter 18 where he discusses “Christus”. Again, it was not the Against Wrede piece Schweitzer was discussing over a stretch of paragraphs referenced in Chapter 18, it was Christus. Your insistent disruption is in error, off topic, and unimportant.
It is evident that “the historical Jesus” is not a purely historical figure, but one which has been artificially transplanted into history.
p. 307
- the downfall of Mark as an historical source
- all the historical problems of the life of Jesus
Furthermore, writers have run into another problem:
- getting the personality of Jesus right.
This entire thread is irrelevant. To anything. You don’t understand what you read.
Schweitzer wasn’t saying Mark wasn’t a valid source for students of early Christianity–quite the contrary–in fact, he used Mark as a source for his own conclusions, in tandem with other available sources.
He said Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, and that the Kingdom of God was something Jesus believed would come in the lifetimes of people he was talking to. That is a conclusion he drew in part from an INFORMED reading of Mark, which did come closer to the original Jesus’ ideas than the later gospels (the authors of which were further along in the divinization process), but was still heavily mythologized–the key was to figure out how to distinguish stories that were based on real events, and stories that were just there to get a point across. (Nor does this only happen with religious texts–there is no reason to assume Caesar really said “Et tu, Brute?” or words to that effect, when he was stabbed to death. Some sources said he responded reproachfully, others said he just died without saying a word. Caesar wasn’t a myth, but there are many many myths about Caesar, even in his own lifetime, some of which he created himself.)
Schweitzer was saying “You can’t read one book written decades after the events in question, which isn’t even trying to be an objective historical work, and claim you know what really happened.” And this would be true for any subject in history–you never trust to one source. Schweitzer was telling Jesus scholars to apply the same standards as they would for any other figure from ancient history. Don’t take anybody’s word for anything, even if they were eyewitnesses, which the author of Mark certainly was not. Assume all writers in ancient history have agendas, and you should probably assume that of more recent primary sources as well.
And I definitely assume it of you, but nobody’s going to be referring to anything you type here in future, so not a problem. Enjoy. 🙂
There were clearly written accounts before Mark, some of which Mark probably drew upon, but Mark is the oldest gospel surviving in its entirety, which is what is typically meant by priority in this context (impossible to order something you don’t have). The Gospel of the Hebrews may have come a bit sooner, but there would also have been a number of texts that didn’t attempt to tell the entire story. That was, of course, a significantly more ambitious endeavor, given how scattered and divided the existing sources were. And Jesus didn’t write his memoirs (Augustus did, but alas.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)