David Strauss' The Life of Jesus

[The Heretic]

In the Life of Jesus (1835) Strauss was one of the first to successfully apply Kantian and Hegelian analyses to the Gospels of the New Testament. Thanks to the Copernican revolution in philosophy, the Kantian turn, Strauss first examined how one views something before examining the nature of these things as they are. He chose to focus more on how the information was presented by the disciples than within the biographical subject material itself.

Strauss made the heretical conclusion that the Gospels were not historical because they were produced by a process - partly deliberate and partly unconscious - a “mythmaking process.” The truth of the Gospels weren't factual but rather propaedeutic – a preparatory introduction – designed to elevate and inspire its readers.

He argued that the myths of Immaculate Conception established a entry framework for believers to approach the life of Jesus Christ and the Ressurection formed the grand exit gate of the narrative. Strauss believed the mythmaking process began after Jesus died and pointed out that not a single one of the Gospels were the work of eyewitnesses. Particularly, the Gospel of John was composed much later in order to include the dogmatic hellenistic interpretation of Logos. However, Strauss is incorrect when he insists the Gospel of Mark was an abridgment of Matthew and Luke.

Albert Schweitzer awarded Strauss the greatest respect by dividing the history of bible study into two: before Strauss and after Strauss.

 

[Crazymanw00t]

I don't think it is myth or a story. It is a history thing. Interesting with the word of history. You can seperate it like this History--> His story --->God's plan.

 

[The Heretic]

Unless you were trying to be cute, that's not very good etymology, Crazy. The actual history of the word "history" comes from Middle English in 1390, histoire, from Old French, from Latin historia, from Greek histori, from historein, which is to inquire, from histr, which is learned man.

The gospels are equally as historical as Homer's raphsodies (Illiad and Odyssey).

 

[Codger]

Actually, the Illiad and Odyssey had a basis in fact. Our understanding and context of those facts is what is blurred. Misunderstandings and wrong assumptions of geographic location throws the whole thing askew.

 

[The Heretic]

Au contraire!

Actually, the Illiad and Odyssey had a basis in fact.

This is an exaggeration. There is no basis to either the Illiad or the Odyssey, and the identification of a ruined town in Turkey with Troy of legend cannot be considered as "basis in fact."

Just because Tokyo is a real city doesn't mean the movie Godzilla is a true story.

My statement that the Gospels were as historical as the raphsodies includes the archaeological evidence as well. There was a city called Jerusalem in 1st century, there was a person named Pilate, and etcetera.

Our understanding and context of those facts is what is blurred. Misunderstandings and wrong assumptions of geographic location throws the whole thing askew.

That would depend on knowing what is blurred and what isn't beforehand, and this is hardly the case with either accounts of mythology.