Re-evaluation of Drews By Bernhard Hoffers
Germany has been struggling with the legacy of the Nazi era, and is still in the process of rehabilitating its exceptional scholars. Bernhardt Hoffers, in his 2003 biographical eulogy, took up the challenge of restoring Drews's reputation, that he felt had been unfairly tarnished. He stressed the following facts.
- A philosophical gadfly
He highlighted that Drews, during his life, had been an irritant, continually encroaching on the turf of many specialists in German universities: in theology, philology, astronomy, mythology, music criticism, psychology. Specialists didn't welcome his interference, and resented him as an outsider. Drews had been a ‘‘maverick’‘, his philosophy stood outside of academia, which didn't accept his dilettantism . ‘‘Hartmann was not in vogue’‘, either, and Drews's dependence on this old professor was another hindrance. Drews created no "school" and had no followers in Germany. He had to remain a teacher in his "Technische Hochschule" in Karlsruhe for the rest of his life.
- Das ignorieren and das Totschweigen
His ‘‘support of Wagner’‘ and ‘‘opposition to Nietzsche’‘ did nothing to improve his standing. He met with the studied indifference and the silence of the academic pundits, while his international public popularity and press coverage were increasing. Even the University of Karlsruhe, in the very town where he lived and taught, didn't want to mention his name.
- A resurrection
After his death his name ‘‘nearly vanished’‘, practically forgotten. He was mentioned in the German media mostly for having advocated the ‘‘need for a religion renewal’‘, and in the literature about Wagner and Nietzsche. His work was omitted or grossly misrepresented and discredited in major German reference books.
His books in Germany are now hard to find. However, his book on Plotinus is still in demand, the Christ Myth is widely available in the English-speaking world — although still subject to ‘‘deprecating and distorting comments from academics’‘ — and Hermann Detering, of Radikalkritik, continues to make the Denial of the Historicity of Jesus still available, championing the cause of a unique German thinker.
Drews had been fighting all his life for acceptance and recognition in Germany, and a ‘‘promotion to a University professorship.’‘ In spite of his ‘‘enormous scholarly output’‘, and his ‘‘popular fame’‘, he never was able to obtain a university position. One has to understand why, at the end of his life, Drews was expressing a ‘‘hope for a renewal of Germany’‘.
- Integrität, from a netter Kerl
Hoffers, for the sake of fairness, remarked that Drews ‘‘never was a member of the Nazi party’‘, and ‘‘spoke early against the growing antisemitism’‘ in the 1920s . He never was involved in any action against Jewish intellectuals, artists, and academics.
Hoffers emphasized that "‘‘As a scholar, Drews had always been objective and honest’‘." He had ‘‘integrity’‘, and never used the dirty tricks of which he himself was a victim. In spite of scholarly differences, he maintained a ‘‘friendship with Schweitzer’‘ for a while. He was a polyglot, collected Japanese prints. He was a gifted, energetic man, with a ‘‘tremendous capacity for work’‘. And he gained the esteem of van den Bergh van Eysinga, the leader of the Dutch Radical school, who viewed him as a good guy
- Drews's ideas still valid
In conclusion, Hoffers urged scholars to renew an acquaintance with Drews's books. Claiming that the arguments developed in his work were outmoded or refuted is unjustified. As a parting shot, Hoffers asks a pertinent question:
Is it really true that the question of Jesus's historicity has been absolutely clarified and is moreover uninteresting, as can be heard in discussions with theologians? (Ist es wirklich so, dass die Frage nach der Historizität Jesu absolut geklärt und obendrein noch so nebensächlich ist, wie man in Gesprächen mit Theologen zu hören bekommt?).
Hoffers concludes that Drews's life was a fascinating chapter of the Zeitgeschichte (history of our times). It is high time to redress the balance and ‘‘restore a truer image’‘ of Drews, whose reputation has been ‘‘unfairly maligned’‘ in the 20th century.
A complete biography of his life and work is yet to be produced, and should be tackled now, when there are still documents and witnesses around.
Read more about this topic: Arthur Drews