Talk:David Strauss

message: I haven't read any of Strauss' works, and I'm just wondering exactly what it was he thought about religion on the whole. He obviously rejected the biblical account of the life of Jesus, but apart from that, was he specifically anti-theistic, anti-religious, atheistic, jewish, or what?
:Here are some excerpts from the editor's introduction to "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" -
::"...Strauss set out to write a destructive critique of the biblical and doctrinal views of Christ, which would enable him to abstract the true essence of Christian faith from the religious imagery with which it had been entangled..."
::"Strauss was, to use Van Harvey's image, a straggler at the edge of the camp of Israel.  He no longer could enter the camp of faith and affirm its rites and practices, but neither could he leave it, for he continued to draw spiritual sustenance from it..."
::"Strauss was...a very religious man engaged in an intensely religious quest and struggle...he considered himself a defender of religion against its real enemies, the naturalists and atheists who cut the nerve center of divine
::"...he became a free-lance theologian who dabbled in biography, in poetry, in philosophy - knowing that he was neither a historian, nor an artist, nor a philosopher.  The theologian who cannot abandon theology, yet cannot practice it, is truly the alienated theologian.  It was the lack of a viable vocation that turned Strauss into a bitter antagonist of the Christian faith..." (this last quote describes the latter years of Strauss' life, after all his major scholarly works were produced)
:Hope that answers your question. Dshin 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that would be a good descriptor.  I think the word deism typically entails a worldview that rejects a priori the notion of God's interaction with the universe.  Strauss, in his scholarly works, is always open to the possibility of the miraculous - he happens to reject each individual instance based on historical/exegetical analysis, not because of some a priori worldview bias. Dshin 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: The second to last paragraph of the section on "Critique" lacks any references, also refers to what appears to be a non-existent work, is badly written besides, appears to be wrong, and adds nothing of value to an encyclopedia entry on Strauss. I think it is a paragraph of "original scholarship" (neither original nor scholarship) and that it taints this entry quite badly.
It should be removed, don't you think? Matthew Baldwin (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201204703/http://www.chora-strangers.org/article/mcgaughey1994 to http://www.chora-strangers.org/article/mcgaughey1994
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The claim stated here is factually inaccurate:
"The Earl of Shaftesbury called the 1846 translation by Marian Evans "the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell."[6][7][8][9]"
As I point out in my book Victorian Jesus, which is inexplicably cited as evidence here, Lord Shaftesbury made this statement about John Seeley's anonymous book, Ecce Homo. I've deleted the statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E4FD:E201:4CC9:C0BD:BD95:CA47 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Shaftesbury