Fascinating take. Did they not both, after all, set themselves against the established religious authorities of their respective times, seeking to shatter the ossified dogmas that shackled the human spirit to dogmatic misinterpretations and blind rituals? Paul too, philosophized with a hammer.
Which isn't to say that their philosophies were necessarily entirely compatible. At the risk of over-interpreting Paul's symbolism, Pauline theology denigrates the flesh in favor of the spirit - he seems to draw a line between the two, and hold the latter up as superior. From this we get the ascetics, the celibates, the flagellants. For Nietzsche, the flesh was foundational; spirit and body were intimately related, and a healthy thoughts could not blossom from unhealthy soil. Hence his emphasis on movement, exercise, diet.
As I say, there's a good chance such a reading mistakes Paul's actual meaning. But then, this is always a risk when one speaks in metaphor. Particularly when translations are poor. If so, one might see Nietzsche's emphasis on the embodied and carnal as a necessary corrective to many centuries of misinterpretation that had thoroughly corrupted the root meaning of Christian practice. Nietzsche's struggle was with the church as it had become; perhaps without realizing it, his thought was a necessary step in accessing once more that which it was originally meant to be.
Yes, that is my impression as well - Nietzsche was partly articulating aspects of the original tradition in new words, which, given the layers upon layers of corruption, must appear as in complete opposition to the authorities. The analogy might only go so far, but is fascinating and worth exploring nonetheless!
As for the physical fitness aspect, we should be careful not to read too much "anti-physicalness" into Paul's concept of flesh/spirit: Paul uses it as the subtle distinction between a "coarse" perception that can only see direct, in-your-face aspects of reality, often combined with simple expediency, and a deeper, more nuanced perception. It is true though that he probably wouldn't put physical fitness number one, but see it as something flowing naturally from deep insight. (Paul was apparently struggling with physical aliments himself, which didn't keep him from carrying out his mission that must have been very taxing on a physical level as well.) But Nietzsche is ambivalent here too--at times he seems to put the "mental/spirit/intellect" ("Geistige") first, so...
I don't think Nietzsche placed the body first in terms of importance. It's more that he saw it as the soil: if poisoned or neglected, what emerged from it could not fail to be unhealthy. But the point of soil is not soil! And on this I suspect Paul may have agreed.
Of course, Nietzsche was himself no athlete, and famously grappled with a sickly body. That very experience was what provided him with such sensitivity to the effects of embodiment on the contents and quality of thought.
Nietzsche tirelessly sought in order to find, whereas many Christians ‘believe’ they already found everything there is to find. I always saw Nietzsche as one of the truest of Christians, and his brutally honest manner concealing the humbleness of not even claiming to be a Christian.
That is a very interesting take. Indeed, he engages very deeply with the question of what it means to be a true Christian, even without putting it like that.
You have convinced me to revisit Nietzsche. I did a shallow fanboy reading of him as a teenager in revolt against all things religious, but then rediscovered Paul as an adult, after realizing that my one-dimensional atheism was silly and that Christianity had some real nuance and depth to it that had been missing from the religious fundamentalism of my childhood. Now maybe it's time to circle round to Nietzsche again and follow your example in synthesizing these two thinkers.
I think reading Nietzsche is very productive, although as someone who, like you, came to appreciate many aspects of Christianity, I must confess that sometimes I'm triggered lol. But often it's possible to find some deep truth in his thought even so -- remember that he lived in an age where Christian morality still ruled the day. Today, on the other hand, many Christians are more on the contrarian side. When reading the Antichrist, I sometimes substituted "priests" with "woke intellectuals"--interesting results ;)
Interesting, Luc. I have a couple of Elaine Pagels' book but not the one on Paul. But the gnostics, from the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls, predate Paul, don't they? Elaine's book, On the Origin of Satan, looks at the zealots and gnostics as the same era, and perhaps the same people. Elaine mentions that Mark, the earliest gospel, wasn't written until 70 CE after the Roman siege of Jerusalem. But maybe I'm mistaken.
Fascinating take. Did they not both, after all, set themselves against the established religious authorities of their respective times, seeking to shatter the ossified dogmas that shackled the human spirit to dogmatic misinterpretations and blind rituals? Paul too, philosophized with a hammer.
Which isn't to say that their philosophies were necessarily entirely compatible. At the risk of over-interpreting Paul's symbolism, Pauline theology denigrates the flesh in favor of the spirit - he seems to draw a line between the two, and hold the latter up as superior. From this we get the ascetics, the celibates, the flagellants. For Nietzsche, the flesh was foundational; spirit and body were intimately related, and a healthy thoughts could not blossom from unhealthy soil. Hence his emphasis on movement, exercise, diet.
As I say, there's a good chance such a reading mistakes Paul's actual meaning. But then, this is always a risk when one speaks in metaphor. Particularly when translations are poor. If so, one might see Nietzsche's emphasis on the embodied and carnal as a necessary corrective to many centuries of misinterpretation that had thoroughly corrupted the root meaning of Christian practice. Nietzsche's struggle was with the church as it had become; perhaps without realizing it, his thought was a necessary step in accessing once more that which it was originally meant to be.
Yes, that is my impression as well - Nietzsche was partly articulating aspects of the original tradition in new words, which, given the layers upon layers of corruption, must appear as in complete opposition to the authorities. The analogy might only go so far, but is fascinating and worth exploring nonetheless!
As for the physical fitness aspect, we should be careful not to read too much "anti-physicalness" into Paul's concept of flesh/spirit: Paul uses it as the subtle distinction between a "coarse" perception that can only see direct, in-your-face aspects of reality, often combined with simple expediency, and a deeper, more nuanced perception. It is true though that he probably wouldn't put physical fitness number one, but see it as something flowing naturally from deep insight. (Paul was apparently struggling with physical aliments himself, which didn't keep him from carrying out his mission that must have been very taxing on a physical level as well.) But Nietzsche is ambivalent here too--at times he seems to put the "mental/spirit/intellect" ("Geistige") first, so...
I don't think Nietzsche placed the body first in terms of importance. It's more that he saw it as the soil: if poisoned or neglected, what emerged from it could not fail to be unhealthy. But the point of soil is not soil! And on this I suspect Paul may have agreed.
Of course, Nietzsche was himself no athlete, and famously grappled with a sickly body. That very experience was what provided him with such sensitivity to the effects of embodiment on the contents and quality of thought.
Nietzsche tirelessly sought in order to find, whereas many Christians ‘believe’ they already found everything there is to find. I always saw Nietzsche as one of the truest of Christians, and his brutally honest manner concealing the humbleness of not even claiming to be a Christian.
That is a very interesting take. Indeed, he engages very deeply with the question of what it means to be a true Christian, even without putting it like that.
You have convinced me to revisit Nietzsche. I did a shallow fanboy reading of him as a teenager in revolt against all things religious, but then rediscovered Paul as an adult, after realizing that my one-dimensional atheism was silly and that Christianity had some real nuance and depth to it that had been missing from the religious fundamentalism of my childhood. Now maybe it's time to circle round to Nietzsche again and follow your example in synthesizing these two thinkers.
I think reading Nietzsche is very productive, although as someone who, like you, came to appreciate many aspects of Christianity, I must confess that sometimes I'm triggered lol. But often it's possible to find some deep truth in his thought even so -- remember that he lived in an age where Christian morality still ruled the day. Today, on the other hand, many Christians are more on the contrarian side. When reading the Antichrist, I sometimes substituted "priests" with "woke intellectuals"--interesting results ;)
Interesting, Luc. I have a couple of Elaine Pagels' book but not the one on Paul. But the gnostics, from the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls, predate Paul, don't they? Elaine's book, On the Origin of Satan, looks at the zealots and gnostics as the same era, and perhaps the same people. Elaine mentions that Mark, the earliest gospel, wasn't written until 70 CE after the Roman siege of Jerusalem. But maybe I'm mistaken.