Abided Knowing

Since Nietzsche is clearly the most influential philologist of the last 150 years, if not arguably the most influential philosopher, his definition of Christianity has pervaded the West.  Much of Nietzsche’s conclusions about religion (academic and theological) are peppered throughout our conversations without much of the substance of Nietzsche’s actual critique.  But here in The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche is already offering a challenge of defining Christendom.

 Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in “another: or “better” life. Hatred of “the world,” condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life, at bottom a craving for the nothing, for the end, for respite, for “the sabbath of sabbaths”

I will maintain (and provide substantial justification for) that Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity is largely based upon Franz Overbeck’s esoteric view of early Christianity.  He flatly admits as much in his correspondence with his best friend and Christian historian. In the end, it almost does not matter from where Nietzsche derived his esoteric versions of Christianity, the version he critiques took hold.

The Challenge is to assess whether or not his version of Christianity is more aptly termed ‘Gnostic Social Stoicism’.  But even if we can separate out the Jewish Christianity of the sacred texts from Nietzsche’s caricature, the caricature surely fits some flavors of modern Christianity.  The first goal of responding to Nietzsche here is to show how the Euangelion is not the bizarrity of Stoicism he descries.  The second is to be honest and critical regarding the parts of the church that do resemble Christianity as Nietzsche describes it.