Nietzsche's Antichrist as explained
through the Pauline, Evolved and Historically False Church
Apprentice Gerald
April, 2014
By the end of the book, most readers of the Antichrist believe they know what Nietzsche (Fred to his friends) is attempting to convey, namely the evils of Christianity. And they may be correct. However, this researcher remains unconvinced that the majority of readers or any exegesis of the Antichrist contain the most relevant insights.
Fred heaps coals on the heads of the Protestants ("Berlin") and Roman Catholics ("Rome"), but ignores the Eastern church (Constantinople). Are we to believe that a competent philologist is unaware of the Greek Church? We should expect Fred to mention the Eastern church, if only in a passing critical remark. But, there no critiques that can only be applied exclusively to the eastern church. The unsuspecting or uncritical reader may "lump" Rome and Istanbul together, however we can not allow this rush to judgment to hinder our investigation.
As stated previously, Fred was a philologist and as such he must be aware of the Greek prefix "anti". The first definition is "against, opposite or opposed" and most people are familiar with this definition. The second definition means "in place of" and the words in English that have the same meaning of "in place of" are vicar and, as an adverb, vicariously. Therefore, the title "Antichrist" can be understood as "Vicar of Christ". Of course, the vicar of Christ is one title for the Pope. We will attempt to find evidence, both compelling and otherwise, to determine if the Antichrist can be applied to the Roman Church, generally, and to the Pope, specifically.
The unsuspecting Apprentice may be tempted to count the number of sections (61), find the middle section (30 /1/30 or 31) and falsely believe that Fred's goal of the book is to critique Saint Paul. The unsuspecting researcher would not realize that Saint Paul may be a cover for the Roman Church or western Christianity. The feasts of Saints Peter and Paul are celebrated by both the Roman and Greek church. Unlike the Orthodox church, the Roman church has merged their feasts days and it claims that both the Petrine and Pauline privileges are invested in the institution of the Papacy.
Fred heaps coals on the heads of the Protestants ("Berlin") and Roman Catholics ("Rome"), but ignores the Eastern church (Constantinople). Are we to believe that a competent philologist is unaware of the Greek Church? We should expect Fred to mention the Eastern church, if only in a passing critical remark. But, there no critiques that can only be applied exclusively to the eastern church. The unsuspecting or uncritical reader may "lump" Rome and Istanbul together, however we can not allow this rush to judgment to hinder our investigation.
As stated previously, Fred was a philologist and as such he must be aware of the Greek prefix "anti". The first definition is "against, opposite or opposed" and most people are familiar with this definition. The second definition means "in place of" and the words in English that have the same meaning of "in place of" are vicar and, as an adverb, vicariously. Therefore, the title "Antichrist" can be understood as "Vicar of Christ". Of course, the vicar of Christ is one title for the Pope. We will attempt to find evidence, both compelling and otherwise, to determine if the Antichrist can be applied to the Roman Church, generally, and to the Pope, specifically.
The unsuspecting Apprentice may be tempted to count the number of sections (61), find the middle section (30 /1/30 or 31) and falsely believe that Fred's goal of the book is to critique Saint Paul. The unsuspecting researcher would not realize that Saint Paul may be a cover for the Roman Church or western Christianity. The feasts of Saints Peter and Paul are celebrated by both the Roman and Greek church. Unlike the Orthodox church, the Roman church has merged their feasts days and it claims that both the Petrine and Pauline privileges are invested in the institution of the Papacy.
We read in almost every section of the Antichrist that Christianity has changed the good news into bad news, the evils of the priestly instinct and the "death affirming' and "life denying" doctrines. Several times "Primitive Christianity" is referred to but not explained to this commentator's satisfaction. Does Fred see the Orthodox church as a type of primitive church and, by extension, beyond modern criticism? We may never know for certain, however we know Fred does not expressly mention the Greek Church.
What would constitute primitive Christianity? Primitive Christianity would not have any dogmas concerning the Bible, it would have no knowledge of an immortal soul and it would be wholly ignorant about the idea of guaranteed salvation.
The Roman Church created the Bible, accepted the immoral soul as dogma in 1515, but they do not know who is saved or who is damned. However, the Protestant churches dogmatically know the books of the Bible and its history, the truth of the immortal soul and the guarantee of salvation. The knowledge of these issues must be considered the opposite of primitive, as they have evolved.
These three criteria of ignorance correspond perfectly with the Orthodox church. They have the Bible on tradition (a recent introduction, we believe), the immortal soul comes to Christianity through Plato, but there is no trace of this idea is found in Orthodoxy and who is saved is left to the mercy of God. In the Modern mind, nothing could be considered more primitive than ignorance on these topics.
We are confident to state that Fred believes that history as it is currently related to an unsuspecting world was created in the 16th century. Fred must know that he is on solid philological ground to make such statements. Fred is aware, all too aware, "that difficulties lurk behind every word" of the New Testament [Section 44] (Jesus, the Jesus or the Savior).
The following are quotes from the Antichrist, followed by commentary.
What would constitute primitive Christianity? Primitive Christianity would not have any dogmas concerning the Bible, it would have no knowledge of an immortal soul and it would be wholly ignorant about the idea of guaranteed salvation.
The Roman Church created the Bible, accepted the immoral soul as dogma in 1515, but they do not know who is saved or who is damned. However, the Protestant churches dogmatically know the books of the Bible and its history, the truth of the immortal soul and the guarantee of salvation. The knowledge of these issues must be considered the opposite of primitive, as they have evolved.
These three criteria of ignorance correspond perfectly with the Orthodox church. They have the Bible on tradition (a recent introduction, we believe), the immortal soul comes to Christianity through Plato, but there is no trace of this idea is found in Orthodoxy and who is saved is left to the mercy of God. In the Modern mind, nothing could be considered more primitive than ignorance on these topics.
We are confident to state that Fred believes that history as it is currently related to an unsuspecting world was created in the 16th century. Fred must know that he is on solid philological ground to make such statements. Fred is aware, all too aware, "that difficulties lurk behind every word" of the New Testament [Section 44] (Jesus, the Jesus or the Savior).
The following are quotes from the Antichrist, followed by commentary.
These priests accomplished that miracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the documentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the face of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the past of their people into religious terms, which is to say, they converted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all offences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was rewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as something far more shameful if familiarity with the ecclesiastical interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our inclinations for uprightness in historicis. Section 26
In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and “holy scriptures” had to be concocted—and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of “sin” now ended, they were duly published. Section 26 "Published" implies a printing press. Fred could have written "duly written", but did not. What do I care for the contradictions of “tradition”? How can any one call pious legends “traditions”? Section 28 These "traditions" are the history of the church. ...what men always sought, with shameless egoism, was their own advantage therein; they created the church out of denial of the Gospels.... Section 36 Final ellipse in the original. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth!... Once more the priestly instinct ...simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and invented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now appeared, had referred to his “Saviour.”... Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity.... Section 42 Final ellipse in the original. Here Fred's writing is most accusatory and blatant. However, he does not explain how or why the church falsified all of history. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal “holiness” unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art—all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. Section 44 Fred alludes to holy books as fraud in word. Whoever is attacked by an “early Christian” is surely not befouled.... On the contrary, it is an honour to have an “early Christian” as an opponent. Section 46 Early Christian is in quotes in the original. Fred knows that the early Christians (Church Fathers) did not write endlessly. ...the church has granted the name of holy only to lunatics or to gigantic frauds in majorem dei honorem.... Section 51 Final ellipse in the original. The gigantic frauds are the literary creations of the western church, such as the Church Fathers, and the falsification of history. One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. Section 59 "Christian agitators" are the early confessors and Church Fathers. Although Saint Augustine is influential in the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church knows so little about him that their knowledge can be considered "ignorance". |
Conclusion
While the criticisms against Christianity appear to be the main subject and bulk of this work, we believe there are three subjects:
1. criticisms against Saint Paul are veiled criticisms again the western churches,
2. unless Orthodoxy is considered primitive Christianity, then the Eastern church is inexplicably absent and
3. the falsification of church and world chronology in order to make Rome triumphant over her enemies and to be the culmination of history and man's achievement.
As always, the Gentle Reader will come to his own conclusions.
While the criticisms against Christianity appear to be the main subject and bulk of this work, we believe there are three subjects:
1. criticisms against Saint Paul are veiled criticisms again the western churches,
2. unless Orthodoxy is considered primitive Christianity, then the Eastern church is inexplicably absent and
3. the falsification of church and world chronology in order to make Rome triumphant over her enemies and to be the culmination of history and man's achievement.
As always, the Gentle Reader will come to his own conclusions.