Albert Schweitzer and Roland de Vaux: advice needed

by behemot 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  behemot

  Hi,

  I'm considering getting from the library Albert Schweitzer's The Quest Of The Historical Jesus. A Critical Study Of Its Progress From Reimarus To Wrede (1906)and Roland de Vaux's Ancient Israel Volume 1: Social Institutions (1958) and Volume 2: Religious Institutions (1960).

  I'm aware that Biblical studies have gone a long way since these two (already classic) works were written, but I was wondering whether they are still worth reading or have become in the meantime completely outdated.

  Anybody read them? Your advice welcome.

  Behemot
• 

  peacefulpete

  This has been a hobby of mine for about 7 years now and after reading nearly all the opinions about an "historical Jesus" I'm left with next to nothing. One theory negates the next one. I'm strongly leaning to Doherty and Price in quetsioning whether there ever was a single person at the base of the stories. There is very little that can't be better understood as OT exegesis or reuse of mytheme and motif. It is quite likely that a few historical exploits by zealots or other messiahs of the day became incorporated into the mix but even these are muddied with legend and useless for identification. Here's a link to an excellent resource web site that gives an overview of opinions about what threads within the Gospels may reflect and actual person. Historical Jesus Theories

  As far as history of Isreal you really do need to be abreast of the newest research. There is a new wave of critical scholarship that is questioning everything and a new breed of conservative that seeks to cling to tradition unless forced to reconsider. A very readable book on the subject is The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel by Finkelstein and Siberman.

  There formost opponent seems to be William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Hbk. ISBN: 0802847943. pp.288. { CBD }{Amazon.com}

  Enjoy.
• 

  dawg

  That is very interesting...
• 

  behemot

  Peacefulpete,

  thanks for your reply. I knew already the website you pointed me to; and as to the books you recommend, I've read the one by Finkelstein and Siberman and the other one (W. Dever) is on my future reading list.

  Behemot
• 

  peacefulpete

  Great, the forum can use another well read person like yourself. Nice to meet you. I've learned so much from my past visits here and wish I had time to linger like I used to.
• 

  White Dove
• 

  Leolaia

  My opinion on the "historical Jesus" thing is that there probably (but not certainly) was a historical figure with that name at the root of the movement but that the evidence does not permit one to successfully reconstruct the life and beliefs of this individual as many have done. My views are thus a little closer to that of G. A. Wells (author of The Jesus Myth and The Jesus Legend) than that of Earl Doherty. I think we are on much surer ground to view early Christianity as a social movement and reconstruct the different parties and belief systems within that early movement. My view about the historical Jesus is similar to this comment by a historian about Alexander the Great:

  "There are three Alexanders: the legendary Alexander, the historical Alexander, and the real Alexander. The first was born in men's minds soon after the death of the last, and he still lives in the East as Iskander. He has been many things, a saint and a devil, a defender of civilization and a barbarian, a perfect knight and a worthless debauchee. The historical Alexander is dead, but he is frequently revived in the pages of histories and biographies that fashion him in the image of each particular age admires; in one age he may be 'greater than Napoleon,' and in another he may be the man who first dreamed of 'one world'. The real Alexander died in Babylon about the thirteenth of June, 323 B.C.E. We know a little of what he did, but we shall never know what he thought or what he was like. The real Alexander is gone forever" (Tom B. Jones, Ancient Civilization, 1966, p. 283).

  As far old books are concerned, I think they are definitely worth the read even if they are outdated. There are many insights that may be missed out today by those who do not read the older literature. Regarding Schweitzer, his emphasis on apocalyptic eschatology as early for first-century Christianity far better represents what we now know about the Judaism of the period and the eschatology of the NT than what J.D. Crossan believes belonged to the earliest stage -- a more Cynic, non-eschatological philosophy (with the more apocalyptic sayings belonging to a later stage of, say, Q). And although it is outdated in many ways, I still regard Moffatt's 1910s-era Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament as one of my most favorite books on the Bible. Having a familiarity with the old literature can also make you aware of the dead-ends and wrong thinking that later came to be disproven through later discoveries (such as Cheyne's ridiculous Jerahmeel/Musri hypothesis, or Solomon Zeitlin's dogged insistance that the Dead Sea Scrolls were medieval forgeries), which is useful for thinking about what current views may be wrong. BTW, you can find many of these books (such as Schweitzer's) on archive.org as free PDFs.
• 

  behemot

  Leolaia,

  thanx for your advice. I always appreciate your opinion. Thanx also for the link, I downloaded some good stuff already (including Moffatt's Introduction).

  Behemot
• 

  hillary_step

  behemot,

  The work by Schweitzer is imo pretty much overeached by more modern studies of the life, or non-life of Christ. Roland de Vaux however I would recommend, especially Volume I which is well researched and still sits well on shelves with more modern studies.

  An interesting book which I have read recently is Volume 4 of Roland Bauckham's, 'The Book Of Acts In Its First Century Setting - Palastinian Setting,' which has much to say about the subject at hand. I particular liked his more scientific approach to numbering the early Christians. I corresponded with Bauckham over a number of matters and found him to be a very interesting and committed historian.

  My own studies over the years have led me to a similar conclusion to others on this thread, that is, that a historical man-christ probably did exist upon which the myths were built.

  HS