Translation:Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin/TEG/Preface
Preface
When I came up with my criticism of evangelical history twelve years ago, two years earlier, a happy and thorough achievement had ushered in the turnaround in the investigation, and the question with which Christian theology had previously struggled in vain had become one , in which it had become possible to give her the last version.
Those two achievements, one of which produces deserved happiness, the other the combined work of happiness and scientific thoroughness, were my hiſtorical starting point.
I was able to connect directly to them, since in them for the first time the own spirit of the material with which they were concerned had preserved life and language[1] I had to build on them, since there could be no further limitation than their own, the removal of which was necessary for the completion of the research.
The one who uttered the learned scientific word about the inner contradiction of the evangelical history, namely about the contradiction of the John and the Synoptic Jeſus, who laid the groundwork for the correct explanation of the evangelical birth and childhood convictions Tefu the basic points, namely the cardinal mark of the first who really brought evangelical history to a decision is whites.
The one who, for the first time, undertook an exact investigation into the relationship between the three Gospels and carried it out so thoroughly, who asked the solution so that the later research could be done, may differ from its result in as many and as possible points , will serve as the foundation forever, iſt Wilke.
As far as whites are concerned at first, he countered the traditional hypothesis, according to which the authors of the Gospels had taken their material from the weaving delivery of the congregation and which Strauss had given its thorough implementation, with some happy statements. Besides, he was so happy to discover that the scriptures of Marcus were the gospel which the authors of the first and third gospels had practiced.
Was it then certain, or could it at least be certain that the historical measures of the first and third Gospels were not taken from the tradition of the congregation, but rather as a professional elaboration of the information which the Gospel of Mark delivered, ſey a, ſo whites had two more stretches to answer. For he had to tear himself apart with the traditional hypothesis when it came to explaining the origin of the Gospel of Marcus, and then when it came to the source from which the Nedas and Proverbs Jeſu, which contain the first and third Gospels, were found.
White found the answer to both questions in the tight notes that ufebius kept for us from Papias' writing. Marcus swept up the Gospel from the occasional stories of Apoftel Peter, whose companion he was given, and as far as the sayings and speeches of Jeſu, with which the first and third Gospels enriched their writings, are concerned, they are taken from the collection of words who had made Apoftel Matthew.
Among other difficulties, it was especially one that brought danger to the face of whites. The traditional hypothesis, in the miracles reported in the Gospels, is one of the strongest proofs that there was no Apoftel, fine eyewitness of the historical efficacy of Jeſu Gospels received the content of their writings. White eliminates this danger by declaring the conspicuous miracle reports to be parabofic or allegorical representations which Jeſus had formed, Defters even remarks that we still use the literal representation of Jeſu in these reports.
Both ways of determining the origin of the Gospels and the source of their content are related to the famed worldview of their authors.
In the vivacity of Strauss's work, Hegelian metaphysics proved how incapable fie fey of grasping the soul of a hiſtorical apparition - when whites deceive the individual The happy successes that he achieved over Strauf failed, it happened because his positive philosophy, which he had developed in contrast to Hegel's, offered him only individual glimpses of light, but could not yet glow through the famed material, not yet illuminate it.
In both misfortunes the bankruptcy of metaphysics came to light at all.
Strauss
It must be fully admitted to the students of Hegel that the philosophy of their master is perfect, straightforward, absolute. The world of the individual and the real cannot be more thorough and comprehensive than it was done by Hegel, an ideal, i. H. Subjected to chimerical universality and reality dissolves, yes, fetishism, which looks at the divine in every single thing and always only looks at the same divine, cannot be restored more fully and more vigorously. As an orthodox pupil of his master, Strauss knows only one power, one reality, one active substance in history.
What is the tradition from which the evangelists took the content of their writings, what is the saga in which a large part of evangelical history formed and which, in an elementary way, traveled across the world free, different from the sub-
no creator? Is it because they stop eyning creators because no one can give their names?
In short, there is a real hiſtoriſches framework that leads Straugen back from the idea to the personality Jeſu, but rather the weakness of this idea and its pervasive involvement with the believing foresight that one - one in a monotonous sense must have done everything.
In fine philosopher's expressions, Strauss remained a theologian, not in spite of her philosopher's character, but rather according to the same. His rule of theory has strengthened the theologian in him to such an extent, begging him to become a perfect theologian to the extent that in the following presentation I mainly and only need to show delicacy and the confusion of subtle anticipations in order to avoid naturalness and confusion in which theology finally sought its hiftorific conclusion and its deserved end.
WHEN, therefore, in 1838 the two men appeared who, like whites, uttered the poisonous word about the pending question and, like Wilke, gave the first eracted explanation - in short, when the first saw and explanations were raised on the evangelical question were not mebr theological, Strauss could only withdraw into the same yaflivity and indolence to which theologians were condemned from then on and forever.
In spite of Wilke's investigation into the Gospel of Marcus, he was still able to make a fine judgment in 1840[2] To summarize the development of this Gospel in the words, that it is "obviously written from the first and third, fey it only in memory," - but he also punished for the indolence with which he pledged a thoroughly cut mortgage , and for the certainty with which he speaks of “verifiable”, by telling a flawless possibility, such as the fine addition: “ſey it is only in memory”.
Weisse had brought some cardinal points to a decision - but Strauss has to demand fine recognition from him and hold back things that have been brought close to perfect certainty in the terrible vagueness that is inherent in fine proceedings.
Weisse and Wilke had already largely overturned the traditional hypothesis, as far as the form of the Gospels is concerned - Strauss continues to speak of tradition as saying "you do nothing - but for his delicately indolent behavior towards Wilke's work he is also rewarded by the scientific nullity that fine writing will always make theologians dear and appear important.
What, have Weisse and Wilke achieved?
Weisse
Above I called e8 a well-deserved luck when white people found the original evangelical history writing in the Gospel of Marcus and in several poisonous and lively views the duels from which the one in the ostrich fox found
Mark withered, Critite withered new life force.
- ↑ Of course, I would have to call Luther's views an outstanding exception if it was only a question of the religious, even artificial testimony of the spirit, and if the reformer's predilection for the fourth as the “only, delicate, right main gospel” was not Iluforical and unreliable throwing proved this religious testimony of the spirit.
- ↑ in the fourth edition of Feines Leben Jeſu, which I reported in the German Yahrbüdyern, 1842, nos. 165-168. In the following presentation I will cite the third edition as before, from which I do not distinguish the following by anything worth mentioning.