Reformed quest for original meaning to renew the faith + Rationalist quest for original meaning to undermine the faith.
Reformers & Rationalists were anti-medieval church. Protestants were left w/ "ahistorical Platonic idealism."
I think he said it better than I can.
He probably thinks this is an insult, but I'd take that as high praise. Unfortunately, it's not true.
The lack of a serial comma is an omen of the disaster to come.
Ok, sure, his aim is to criticize the lack of nuance in Wikipedia, but that reveals NTW's standard: he just needs to be more nuanced than Wikipedia.
Another line that might come in handy later.
He adds that Strauss's Hegelian mythology gets confused with historical mythology in Bultmann. A preview of coming attractions.
You know someone really hates Bultmann when it leads him to defend Strauss!
We'll come back to this definition when we discuss Bultmann.
How NTW sees himself:
NTW's conclusion: they must have been driven by other factors.
Where did Schweitzer get his apocalyptic idea about Jesus? According to NTW, from Wagner.
Warning: fallacious reasoning ahead.
Anyone looking for consistency here will not find it.
1. Modernity is Epicurean, separating God from the world.
2. Epicureanism + Platonism fosters apocalyptic, since the only way to reach God is by destroying the world.
3. The War confirmed this apocalyptic vision.
4. Barth said Nein to natural theology.
1. Old stories we can't believe.
2. Stories cultures tell themselves to explain the human predicament.
3. Cosmic, apocalyptic myths that code another truth.
I explain this here: dwcongdon.com/wp-content/upl…
So politics is now the problem?
Oh, there's more.
Correction: he denies there are any generally available signs (i.e., miracles). Divine action in the world is visible to faith.
It gets worse.
Wrong again. All NTW needs to do is read Konrad Hammann on Bultmann and Judaism, but that would require work.
- Platonism / Gnosticism
- Philosophical idealism
- Lutheran quietism
Apparently, for NTW, one engages history only if one reaches his conclusions.
So in one fell swoop, purely by guilt by association, NTW has made virtually everything before him worthless.
What was that about snobbery?
Again he dismisses them by saying they were merely responding to their present context, not to the historical data.
So much of this lecture is logically fallacious amateur psychologizing.
"The principal virtue of the historian ... is the cultivation of the listening faculty, which ... does not think that violence is the basic form of engagement."
NTW could learn something from Käsemann.
Notice this connection: NTW thinks if you reject natural theology, you also reject real divine action.
Maybe then, he says, we can "look at something in the world and work up to God." 🤮
Pretty much sums up this entire lecture: self-serving fiction.
IOW, history is a public objective science.
So that's it for lecture 2. More to come later, if I can stomach it.