What do you think?
Rate this book
Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective
Hans Schwarz presents a comprehensive history of evil in Western thought. Schwarz illustrates what the behavioral sciences and psychoanalysis are saying about evil and how it might be ameliorated. He also examines the biblical standing, before offering his own constructive position.
208 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1994
10 people want to read
About the author
Hans Schwarz
126 books2 followersHans Schwarz (DrTheol, Erlangen University), the author or editor of over fifty books, is professor of systematic theology and contemporary theological issues at the University of Regensburg in Regensburg, Germany. He previously taught at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Ohio.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 1, 2022
I'm not sure I understand the nature of evil any better but I do have a better understanding of what some influential theologians said about it.
May 4, 2022
I just finished "Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective," by Hans Schwarz, 1995.
I have to say that the translation from German is great. Mark Worthing, though he doesn't get a cover shot or a "translators comments" did a phenomenal job. Ive read quite a few German writers translated and some are just horrible, and then there's my homie Mark, he makes me proud of the German theologians.
This book deals with evil, sin and moral sin, theodicy...the list goes on. Schwarz first and second chapters deal with the behavioral and psychoanalytical aspects of evil with the evolutionary approach of why humans are aggressive and what this aggression did for humanity. Then he jumps into "evil" in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that evil is a different word in Hebrew and Greek (Aramaic assumed) from sin. My mind accepts a mixing of the two but they are not univocal. Though they do work together. Brackish water, miserable places, Joseph's dream with the seven cows all rely on evil to express this. Potiphar's wife was a call to "do a great evil and sin." I found Schwarz's coverage of "the Satan" quite good. The Old Testament perspective would have Satan or the Satan as an instrument of God's will while the New Testament would assume more of a dualistic approach with Satan (formal name now) operating against God: God is described as a roaring lion and then Satan is; the angel of the Lord did the dirty work at the original passover and then in Paul it was Satan. People were trying to best illustrate their doctrine of God during the Old Testament and were adding in tons of themselves and their neighbors religions.
The New Testament sees Satan differently. Here we are not talking about the Satan but rather a personified and proper Satan. Evil has a cause. This is embraced in the NT by an ethical or modified dualism which was a bit of an overflow from the apocryphal writings but not so much from the Old Testament.
"Evil is the godlessness that human beings continually find themselves," p 75.
In Paul death is the individuals own power pursuing sin and this gives death its mastery and what makes sin the author of everything evil. Sin is not passed on generation to generation, contra Augustine. Schwarz jumps into monism and dualism while speaking to Zoroastrianism (see my summary of "The Devil" from a few weeks back) Manichaeanism, and Gnosticism. This battle looks like this: if there is one Principal then all good and all evil come from the single principal (monism); if there are two Principals the one deals evil and the other good (dualism). Dualism shifts the question to how can two Principals exist; how could there always have been two Principals?
Next, and a large question when dealing with evil, Schwarz deals with the old question of freedom and responsibility with predestination and grace. Basically if all is predestined then (from above) there is a single Principal (God) who is the origin of all good and all evil. The historical debates of Pelagianism V Augustinianism are spoken to before Erasmus V Luther get some ink.
As a Lutheran theologian I don't take issue with Schwarz dealing with evil in Lutheran categories. I would say that I think I've finally seen my issue with Luther's doctrine of two Kingdoms. I don't think there are two Kingdoms I think there are two rulers of one Kingdom. Bring in inaugurated eschatology and we are growing from one into the Kingdom of God, from following Satan to following Christ. There are growing pains and everything won't be awesome until the Parousia. Augustine (City of God) and Luther (two Kingdom theology) were a bit off here in my opinion.
Schwarz's penultimate chapter is modern theologians take on evil, sin, and theodicy. He deals with Barth, Tillich, Pannenberg, Liberation, Feminist, and Process, before speaking to Hindu, Buddhist, and Islam.
His final chapter brings all these thoughts together in four points:
Evil exists where good is not present in the fullest by that natural or moral.
There is no neutral territory between good and evil.
We must give up on the personification of evil without loosing the enchantment.
The end of evil is not yet.
(More of Schwarz's theology and less of his historical analysis.)
To leave you with a monistic question: if all good and all evil originate in God can you trust God? Why or how?
#Evil #HansSchwarz #Harmatology #Demonology #Satanology #Theodicy #Theology #SystematicTheology #HistoricalTheology #GermanTheologians #BiblicalScholarship
I have to say that the translation from German is great. Mark Worthing, though he doesn't get a cover shot or a "translators comments" did a phenomenal job. Ive read quite a few German writers translated and some are just horrible, and then there's my homie Mark, he makes me proud of the German theologians.
This book deals with evil, sin and moral sin, theodicy...the list goes on. Schwarz first and second chapters deal with the behavioral and psychoanalytical aspects of evil with the evolutionary approach of why humans are aggressive and what this aggression did for humanity. Then he jumps into "evil" in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that evil is a different word in Hebrew and Greek (Aramaic assumed) from sin. My mind accepts a mixing of the two but they are not univocal. Though they do work together. Brackish water, miserable places, Joseph's dream with the seven cows all rely on evil to express this. Potiphar's wife was a call to "do a great evil and sin." I found Schwarz's coverage of "the Satan" quite good. The Old Testament perspective would have Satan or the Satan as an instrument of God's will while the New Testament would assume more of a dualistic approach with Satan (formal name now) operating against God: God is described as a roaring lion and then Satan is; the angel of the Lord did the dirty work at the original passover and then in Paul it was Satan. People were trying to best illustrate their doctrine of God during the Old Testament and were adding in tons of themselves and their neighbors religions.
The New Testament sees Satan differently. Here we are not talking about the Satan but rather a personified and proper Satan. Evil has a cause. This is embraced in the NT by an ethical or modified dualism which was a bit of an overflow from the apocryphal writings but not so much from the Old Testament.
"Evil is the godlessness that human beings continually find themselves," p 75.
In Paul death is the individuals own power pursuing sin and this gives death its mastery and what makes sin the author of everything evil. Sin is not passed on generation to generation, contra Augustine. Schwarz jumps into monism and dualism while speaking to Zoroastrianism (see my summary of "The Devil" from a few weeks back) Manichaeanism, and Gnosticism. This battle looks like this: if there is one Principal then all good and all evil come from the single principal (monism); if there are two Principals the one deals evil and the other good (dualism). Dualism shifts the question to how can two Principals exist; how could there always have been two Principals?
Next, and a large question when dealing with evil, Schwarz deals with the old question of freedom and responsibility with predestination and grace. Basically if all is predestined then (from above) there is a single Principal (God) who is the origin of all good and all evil. The historical debates of Pelagianism V Augustinianism are spoken to before Erasmus V Luther get some ink.
As a Lutheran theologian I don't take issue with Schwarz dealing with evil in Lutheran categories. I would say that I think I've finally seen my issue with Luther's doctrine of two Kingdoms. I don't think there are two Kingdoms I think there are two rulers of one Kingdom. Bring in inaugurated eschatology and we are growing from one into the Kingdom of God, from following Satan to following Christ. There are growing pains and everything won't be awesome until the Parousia. Augustine (City of God) and Luther (two Kingdom theology) were a bit off here in my opinion.
Schwarz's penultimate chapter is modern theologians take on evil, sin, and theodicy. He deals with Barth, Tillich, Pannenberg, Liberation, Feminist, and Process, before speaking to Hindu, Buddhist, and Islam.
His final chapter brings all these thoughts together in four points:
Evil exists where good is not present in the fullest by that natural or moral.
There is no neutral territory between good and evil.
We must give up on the personification of evil without loosing the enchantment.
The end of evil is not yet.
(More of Schwarz's theology and less of his historical analysis.)
To leave you with a monistic question: if all good and all evil originate in God can you trust God? Why or how?
#Evil #HansSchwarz #Harmatology #Demonology #Satanology #Theodicy #Theology #SystematicTheology #HistoricalTheology #GermanTheologians #BiblicalScholarship
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews