Old Faith and the New

by David Friedrich Strauss, George Albert Wells

German philosopher and radical theologian David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) distinguished himself as one of Europe's most controversial critics of the Bible and an intellectual martyr for freethought. In The Old Faith & the New (1872) he uses both 19th- century science and leading philosophers to reject God as the creator of the universe and humankind, the divinity of Christ, and the reality of miracles (the Old Faith), thus consigning religion to the domains of history, myth, and ethics. With Christianity's cosmology undermined, Strauss constructs a new view of the universe and humanity's place in it grounded in science and contemporary technology, Darwinian evolution, and inductive reasoning (the New Faith), all of which offered the hope of finding solutions to human problems.

Genres: Philosophy

403 pages, Hardcover

First published February 1, 1997

About the author

In 1808, David Friedrich Strauss was born. The German writer pioneered scholarship doubting the historicity of Jesus. Strauss became a Lutheran vicar in 1830, and studied theology under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He was appointed to the Theological Seminary at the University at Tubingen. His book Life of Jesus (1835), dissecting the New Testament as largely mythical, was published to great acclaim, but lost him his teaching post. In 1836 he left the church. In his final book, The Old Faith and the New (1872), Strauss eschewed Christianity and the concept of immortality. British freethinking novelist George Eliot translated his first book into English. D. 1874.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_St...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

http://www.nndb.com/people/178/000097...

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/str...

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

STRAUSS’S “CONFESSION,” AND HIS LAST BOOK

David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) was a German theologian and writer. He most famously wrote 'The Life of Jesus Critically Examined' but also books such as 'The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History.' more information about Strauss, you might read 'David Friedrich Strauss & His Theology,' 'David Friedrich Strauss in His Life and Writings,' and 'David Friedrich Strauss and His Critics: The Life of Jesus Debate in Early Nineteenth-Century German Journals.' [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 2-volume 223+129 page edition.]

In Strauss’s Prefatory Postscript to this 1872 book (published two years before his death), he explains, “This is a Confession; it does not assail the position held by others, but only defends its own.”

He recalls, “Forty years ago, before my ‘Life of Jesus’ appeared, the impression had long been looming up before the minds of thoughtful students of theology, that no such supernatural things could have occurred in Jesus’ career as were narrated in the gospels and had been believed by the church down to that period; neither could they believe in the unnaturally-natural interpretations offered by the rationalistic expositors of scripture; doubts too as to the apostolic origin of the gospels and as to the historical character of these writings in general had sprung up here and there. And yet when I brought these fragments of thought together and showed that the evangelical narratives are neither apostolical nor historical; that the miracles they recount belong to Myth rather than to History; that everything about Jesus was in reality perfectly natural, albeit we can not now give an account of every circumstance of his life---when in my ‘Life of Jesus’ I put all these things together in consecutive order, every one, young and old, was indignant, and the author’s name ‘the synonym for ev’ry deed accurst.’” (Volume I, pg. xxvii)

He continues, “when in my latest work I consider Jesus in the light of the Centre and Stay of our religious life, I find there are chiefly two reasons why he cannot be so regarded: first, he cannot be the centre, for our knowledge of him is too fragmentary; then he cannot be the stay, for what we do know about him indicates a person of fantastic fanaticism. In all this there is clearly no apostasy but only the normal result attending the development of scientific convictions, viz, that now I give full swing to certain reflections which previously I thought I could push aside.” (Pg. xliv)

He concludes this Postscript, “The natural effort of our times to sever the tie between church and state; the inevitable breaking up of state churches into sects and free societies, must at no distant period make it possible for numbers of citizens to belong to no church at all, even externally… There is no necessity in the world for our interfering with one another: there is nothing to hinder our standing up like men and getting our rights. The right to do just this was all I demanded in my Confession, with regard to which I still hold that in it I did a good work and earned the thanks of a less biased future. The day will come, as it came for the ‘Life of Jesus,’ when my book shall be understood---only this time I shall not live to see it.” (Pg. li)

In the Introduction, he explains, “I have never desired, nor do I now desire to disturb the contentment or the faith of any one. But where these are already shaken, I desire to point out the direction in which I believe a firmer soil is to be found.” (Pg. 9-10)

He outlines, “I shall, therefore, have a double task to perform; first, to expound our position towards the old creed, and then the fundamental principles of that new Cosmic conception which we acknowledge as ours. The creed is Christianity, Our first question therefore resolves itself into how and in what sense we still are Christians… it is possible to have severed oneself from Christianity and still to be religious. Out of this first question therefore arises the next, whether we still possess religion. Our second leading question concerning the new Cosmic conception also, upon examination, resolves itself into two. In the first place, we would know in what this Cosmic conception consists, on what evidence it rests, and what especially, as compared with the old ecclesiastical view, are its characteristic principles. And in the second place we would learn whether this modern Cosmic conception performs the same services as did the Christian dogma for its votaries, whether it performs them better or worse, whether it is more or less adapted to serve as a basis on which to erect the structure of a life truly human, that is to say moral, and because moral, happy.” (Pg. 11-12)

He says of the Apostles’ Creed, “We moderns can no longer either excite or even interest ourselves in such a dogma; nay, we are only capable of conceiving the matter at all when we conceive something else in regard to it, i.e., put an interpretation of our own upon it; instead of which, however, we shall do better to make clear to ourselves how the ancient Christians gradually came by so strange a doctrine. This, however, belongs to the church history, which also shows us in what manner Christians of more recent times again drifted away from this belief, for if still outwardly professed, it has nevertheless lost it former vitality even in circles otherwise orthodox.” (Pg. 15)

He asserts, “the debate as to the truth of Christianity has at last narrowed itself into one as to the personality of its founder, that the decisive battle of Christian theology should take place on the field of Christ’s life… Even in the domain of religious history it is indeed of importance to assure ourselves that Moses and Mohammed were no imposters; but in other respects the religions established by them must be judged according to their own deserts, irrespectively of the greater of less accuracy of our acquaintance with their founders’ lives. The reason is obvious. They are only the founders, not at the same time the objects of the religions they instituted… This is notoriously otherwise with Christianity. Here the founder is at the same time the most prominent object of worship; the system based upon him loses its support as soon as he is shown to be lacking the qualities appropriate to an object of religious worship… the Christian ‘cultus,’ this garment cut out to fit an incarnate God, looks slovenly and shapeless when but a mere man is invested with its ample folds.” (Pg. 53-55)

On the issue of whether Jesus was of “a severely Hebrew-Christian standpoint,” or whether he supported bringing Gentiles into the community, he admits, “I cannot here enter on a closer investigation; I have only wished to throw out a hint as to the uncertainty of everything on this head, how we cannot make sure of the sayings and teachings of Christ on any one point, whether we really have his own words and thought before us, or only such as later times found it convenient to ascribe to him.” (Pg. 66)

He says of the resurrection accounts, “Consternation at the execution of their master had scared them far from the dangerous metropolis, to their native Galilee; here they may have held secret meetings in honor of his memory, they may have found strength in their faith in him, have searched Scripture through and through… As soon as it seemed once patent that he could not have remained in the grave, being the Messiah, the step was not great to the tidings---we have seen him who hath risen from the dead, he hath met us, spoken with us… And in successive narratives the manifestations grew even more palpable… Thus the disciples, by elaborating the conception of the resurrection of their slain master, had rescued his work; and, moreover, it was their honest conviction that they had actually beheld and conversed with the risen Lord. It was no case of pious deception, but all the more of self-deception; embellishment and legend, of course, although possibly still in good faith, soon became intermingled with it. But looking at it historically, as an outward event, the resurrection of Jesus had not the very slightest foundation… the story of the resurrection of Jesus can only be called a world-wide deception… his teachings would have been blown away … had these leaves not been held together … by an illusory belief in his resurrection.” (Pg. 81-83)

Thus, he answers his first question [‘are we still Christians?’], “if we would speak as honest, upright men, we must acknowledge that we are no longer Christians.” (Pg. 107) Later, he states, “The retinue of angels is necessary… to the idea of a personal God… But with our present cosmical conception, which knows inhabitants of the heavenly bodies, not any longer a divine court, the angels disappear likewise… since [God] has thus lost every attribute of personal existence and action, how can we still continue to conceive of a personality of God?” (Pg. 124-125) So about the second question [‘have we still a reiogion?’], “If the preceding consideration has conducted us to the conclusion that we can no longer either hold the idea of a personal God, or of life after death, then it would seem that the question… must be answered in the negative.” (Pg. 153)

But wait: he goes on: “Religion with us is no longer what it was with our fathers; but it does not follow that it is extinct in us. At all events we have retained the essential ingredient of all religion---the sentiment of unconditional dependence. Whether we say God or Cosmos, we feel our relation to the one… to be one of absolute dependence… as we feel ourselves absolutely dependent on this world… we are compelled to conceive of it in its fullest sense… we no longer regard the Cosmos as the work of a reasonable and good creator, but rather as the laboratory of the reasonable and the good. We consider it not as planned by the highest reason, but planned FOR the highest reason… the Cosmos is simultaneously both cause and effect, the outward and the inward together.” (Pg. 161-163) Later, he concludes, “We demand the same piety for our Cosmos that the devout man of old demanded for his God… if we are asked whether we still have a religion, our answer will not be as roundly negative as in the former case, but we shall say Yes or No, according to the spirit of the enquiry.” (Pg. 168)

He strongly defends Darwinism: “The theory is unquestionably still very imperfect; it leaves an infinity of things unexplained, and moreover, not only details, but leading and cardinal questions; it rather indicates possible future solutions than give them already itself. But be this as it may… Darwin has demonstrated this force, this process of Nature; he has opened the door by which a happier coming race will finally cast out miracles. Every one who knows what miracles imply will praise him as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.” (Pg. 204-205) He adds, “Means and ways of this sort… will be found more and more as the investigation of Nature proceeds; they do not exclude one another, but tend all together to the solution of the great enigma.” (Pg. 223)

He admits, “many of the difficulties environing the problem of thought and feeling in man entirely proceed from this assumption of a psychical essence, distinct from the corporeal organs. How from an extended, non-thinking thing, such as the human body, impressions can be conveyed to a non-extended, thinking thing, such as the soul is alleged to be… in short, how any communion is possible between them---this no philosophy has yet explained, and none ever will.” (Vol. II, pg. 17)

But he adds, “The conditions, the requisite apparatus, exist in the brain and nervous system … [where] an idea is roused by a sensation or a perception; and vice versa… If this be considered pure unmitigated materialism, I will not dispute it. In fact, I have always tacitly regarded the contrast so loudly proclaimed between materialism and idealism … as a mere quarrel about words.” (Pg. 18-19)

He also says, “We acknowledge the laws of the Decalogue… to have been the product of a necessity for such in human society, gradually taught by experience… the doctrine of their divine origin hallowed the laws, while our view of their growth seems to admit merely their utility… They could only fully recover their sanctity, if it were possible likewise to discover their internal necessity---their derivation, not only from social wants, but from the nature or essence of man.” (Pg. 45-46) He concludes, “We do not for a moment ignore the necessity which now exists, and must long exist, of a Church for the majority of mankind… but we look upon the opinion as a prejudice, which deems that every individual must necessarily belong to a church; and that he to whom the old no longer suffices, must join new one.” (Pg. 116-117)

For anyone wanting to know about David Strauss the man, or about his views on religion, this book will be of great interest.

[Victor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extension of Hegelian interpretation of theology with the "Historical Jesus" discourse + discourses that point to perceived changes on christian societies habits and its relations with the exposition of faith.

Second half of the book takes another path, with rage directioned to sindicalism and gossips related to renowned musicians contriving the book intentions

[Ashley Roberts]

This was the most painful thing I’ve ever read . I’m so tired of theology. Idk what he was saying . Something about Schleiermacher . BORING omg