A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
| Christ myth theory | |
|---|---|
 The Resurrection of Christ by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1875)—some mythicists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising deity. | |
| Early proponents |
|
| Later proponents |
|
| Living proponents |
|
| Subjects | Historical Jesus, historical reliability of the Gospels, historicity of Jesus |
| Part of a series on |
 |
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1][q 1] is the fringe theory that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historical substance.[q 2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, it is the view that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[q 3]
The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus who lived in 1st-century-CE Roman Judea,[2][3][4] but his baptism and crucifixion are the only facts of his life about which a broad consensus exists.[q 4] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of other major aspects of the gospel stories, nor the extent to which they and the Pauline epistles may have replaced the historical Jesus with a supernatural Christ of faith.[q 5]
Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, when history began to be critically analyzed,[5] and was revived in the 1970s. Proponents broadly argue that a mythological character was historicized in the gospels, and that thus a historical Jesus never existed.[q 3][q 6][q 7] Most mythicists employ a threefold argument:[6] they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the gospels to establish Jesus's historicity; they argue that information is lacking on Jesus in secular sources from the first and early second centuries; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a deity who was concretized in the gospels.[7][q 8][q 9]
The question of historicity was settled in scholarship in the early 20th century,[8][9] and mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity,[q 10][10][11][web 1] and has been considered fringe for more than two centuries.[12] It is criticized for commonly being presented by non-experts, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable methodologies, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1] While rejected by mainstream scholarship, with the rise of the internet the Christ myth theory has attracted more attention in popular culture,[13][14] and some of its proponents are associated with atheist activism.[15][16]
Traditional and modern approaches on Jesus
Mainstream scholarship asserts that there was a historical Jesus.[17][18] However scholars differ about the accuracy of the biblical accounts about Jesus, with only two events supported by nearly-universal scholarly consensus: Jesus' baptism, and his crucifixion.[19][3][4][q 4] The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Judea.[20][21][22][23][q 11] Martin Kähler made the famous distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith", arguing that faith is more important than exact historical knowledge.[24][25] According to Ehrman, Jesus was a first-century Judean Jew, who was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today,[q 12] and that the most widely held view by critical scholars is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet[26] who was subsequently deified.[27]
The origins and rapid rise of Christianity, as well as the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus, are a matter of longstanding debate in theological and historical research. While Christianity may have started with an early nucleus of followers of Jesus,[28] within a few years after the presumed death of Jesus in c. AD 33, at the time Paul started preaching, a number of "Jesus-movements" seem to have existed, which propagated divergent interpretations of Jesus' teachings.[29][30][31] A central question is how these communities developed and what their original convictions were,[29][32] as a wide range of beliefs and ideas can be found in early Christianity, including adoptionism and docetism,[web 2] and also Gnostic traditions which used Christian imagery,[33][34] which were all deemed heretical by proto-orthodox Christianity.[35][36]
Quest for the historical Jesus
A first quest for the historical Jesus took place in the 19th century when hundreds of biographies about Jesus were proposed.[37] German theologian David Strauss (1808–1874) pioneered the search for the "historical Jesus" by rejecting all supernatural events as mythical elaborations. His 1835 work, Life of Jesus,[38] was one of the first and most influential systematic analyses of the life story of Jesus, aiming to base it on unbiased historical research.[39][40] The Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, starting in the 1890s, used the methodologies of higher criticism,[web 3] a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".[41] It compared Christianity to other religions, regarding it as one religion among others and rejecting its claims to absolute truth, and demonstrating that it shares characteristics with other religions.[web 3] It argued that Christianity was not simply the continuation of the Old Testament, but syncretistic, and was rooted in and influenced by Hellenistic Judaism (Philo) and Hellenistic religions like the mystery cults and Gnosticism.[web 4] Martin Kähler questioned the usefulness of the search for the historical Jesus, making the famous distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith", arguing that faith is more important than exact historical knowledge.[24][25] Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), who was related to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,[web 4] emphasized theology, and in 1926 argued that historical Jesus research was both futile and unnecessary; however, Bultmann slightly modified that position in a later book.[42][43] The first quest ended with Albert Schweitzer's 1906 critical review of the history of the search for Jesus' life in The Quest of the Historical Jesus—From Reimarus to Wrede. The first quest was challenged in the 19th and early 20th centuries by authors who denied the historicity of Jesus, notably Bauer and Drews.
The second quest started in 1953, in a departure from Bultmann.[42][43] Several criteria, the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of embarrassment, were introduced to analyze and evaluate New Testament narratives. This second quest declined in the 1970s[40][44] due to the diminishing influence of Bultmann,[40] and coinciding with the first publications of George Albert Wells, which marks the onset of the revival of Christ myth theories. According to Paul Zahl, while the second quest made significant contributions at the time, its results are now mostly forgotten, although not disproven.[45]
The third quest started in the 1980s and introduced new criteria.[46][47] Primary among these are[47][48] the criterion of historical plausibility,[46] the criterion of rejection and execution,[46] and the criterion of congruence (also called cumulative circumstantial evidence), a special case of the older criterion of coherence.[49] The third quest is interdisciplinary and global,[50] carried out by scholars from multiple disciplines[50] and incorporating the results of archeological research.[51] The third quest primarily yielded new insights into Jesus' Palestinian and Jewish context rather than the person of Jesus himself.[52][53][54] It also has made clear that all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church, raising questions about the criterion of dissimilarity, and the suitability of ascribing material solely to Jesus rather than the emerging Church.[55]
Historical existence of Jesus
To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least 12 independent sources from 5 authors in the first century from supporters and 2 independent sources from 2 authors from non-supporters.[56] Since historical sources on other named individuals from first century Galilee were written by either supporters or enemies, these sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.[56] Bart Ehrman estimates that there are about 30 surviving "independent sources that know there was a man Jesus" written by 25 authors, including 16 in the New Testament.[57] With at least 14 sources by supporters and non-supporters, within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for any other notable person from 1st century Galilee.[58]
These critical methods have led to a demythologization of Jesus. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative that replaced the historical Jesus who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea,[20][21][22][23][q 11] but that a historical Jesus did exist. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states that Jesus "certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[17][18]
Following the criteria of authenticity-approach, scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] but the baptism and the crucifixion are two events in the life of Jesus that are subject to "almost universal assent".[note 2] According to historian Alanna Nobbs,
While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain.[60]
Historical portraits of Jesus have often differed from each other and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[18][61][62][note 3] The primary portraits of Jesus resulting from the third quest are: apocalyptic prophet; charismatic healer; cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; and prophet of social change.[63][64] According to Ehrman, the most widely held view is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet[26] who was subsequently deified.[27]
According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus".[q 13] According to Philip R. Davies, a biblical minimalist, "what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality".[web 6] According to Ehrman, "the real problem with Jesus" is not the mythicist stance that he is "a myth invented by Christians", but that he was "far too historical", that is, a first-century Judean Jew, who was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today.[65] According to Ehrman, "Jesus was a first-century Jew, and when we try to make him into a twenty-first century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for."[66]
Demise of authenticity and call for memory studies
Since the late 2000s, concern has grown about the usefulness of the criteria of authenticity.[67][68][69][web 7] According to Chris Keith, the criteria are literary tools, indebted to form criticism, not historiographic tools.[70] They were meant to discern pre-gospel traditions, not to identify historical facts,[70] but have "substituted the pre-literary tradition with that of the historical Jesus".[71] According to Anthony Le Donne, the usage of such criteria is a form of "positivist historiography".[72]
Keith, Le Donne, and others[note 4] argue for a "social memory" approach, which states that memories are shaped by the needs of the present and that instead of searching for a historical Jesus, scholarship should investigate how the memories of Jesus were shaped, and how they were reshaped "with the aim of cohesion and the self-understanding (identity) of groups".[71] James D. G. Dunn's 2003 study, Jesus Remembered, prompted the "increased ... interest in memory theory and eyewitness testimony".[web 8] Dunn argues that "he only realistic objective for any 'quest of the historical Jesus' is Jesus remembered."[73] Dunn argues that Christianity started with the impact Jesus himself had on his followers, who passed on and shaped their memories of him in an oral gospel tradition. According to Dunn, to understand who Jesus was, and what his impact was, scholars have to look at "the broad picture, focusing on the characteristic motifs and emphases of the Jesus tradition, rather than making findings overly dependent on individual items of the tradition".[73]
Le Donne elaborated on Dunn's thesis, basing "his historiography squarely on Dunn's thesis that the historical Jesus is the memory of Jesus recalled by the earliest disciples".[web 8] According to Le Donne, memories are refactored, and not an exact recalling of the past.[web 8] He argues that the remembrance of events is facilitated by relating it to a common story or "type", which shapes the way the memories are retained and narrated. He therefore means that the Jesus tradition is not a theological invention of the early Church, but is shaped and refracted by the restraints that the type puts on the narrated memories, due to the mold of the "type".[web 8]
According to Chris Keith, an alternative to the search for a historical Jesus "posits a historical Jesus who is ultimately unattainable but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did". According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible", calling into question the methods and aim of the first model.[74]
Views of Christ myth theorists
Mythicists variously argue that the accounts of Jesus are completely or mostly of a mythical nature, questioning the mainstream paradigm of a historical Jesus in the beginning of the 1st century who was subsequently deified. Most mythicists note that Christianity developed within Hellenistic Judaism, which was influenced by Hellenism, and that early Christianity and the accounts of Jesus are to be understood in this context. Yet, where contemporary New Testament scholarship has introduced several criteria to evaluate the historicity of New Testament passages and sayings, most Christ myth proponents have relied on comparisons of Christian mythemes with contemporary religious traditions, emphasizing the mythological nature of the Bible accounts.[75][note 5]
The most radical mythicists hold, in terms given by Price, the "Jesus atheism" viewpoint, that is, there never was a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, and the mytheme of his incarnation, death, and exaltation. They hold that this character developed out of a syncretistic fusion of Jewish, Hellenistic and Middle Eastern religious thought; was put forward by Paul; and historicised in the gospels, which are also syncretistic. Notable 'Jesus atheists' are Paul-Louis Couchoud, Earl Doherty,[q 3] Thomas L. Brodie, and Richard Carrier.[q 14][q 15]
Some authors argue for the Jesus agnosticism viewpoint. That is, whether there was a historical Jesus is unknowable and if he did exist, close to nothing can be known about him.[77] Notable 'Jesus agnosticists' are Robert Price and Thomas L. Thompson.[78][79] According to Thompson, the question of the historicity of Jesus also is not relevant for the understanding of the meaning and function of the Biblical texts in their own times.[78][79]
Wells in his early works and Alvar Ellegård have argued that "the first Christians had in mind Jesus who had lived as a historical figure, just not of the recent past."[80] Ellegård identified this figure with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness,[81] de facto proposing a historical Jesus.[82] Wells, in his later writings, came to view the gospel stories of Jesus as containing elements of a historical figure "traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century,"[83] preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels, arguing for "two originally quite independent streams of tradition", which were fused in the gospels,[84][q 16] leaving open the question regarding Paul's Christ "as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure life that Paul supposed of him." According to Wells, "There is no means of deciding this issue."[85]
Overview of main mythicist arguments
According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst, most Christ mythicists follow a threefold argument first set forward by German historian Bruno Bauer in the 1800s: they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels to postulate a historically existing Jesus; they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second century; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins.[86] More specifically:
- Paul's epistles lack detailed biographical information—most mythicists agree that the Pauline epistles are older than the gospels, and note that aside from a few passages which may have been interpolations, there is a complete absence of any detailed biographical information such as might be expected if Jesus had been a contemporary of Paul,[87] nor do they cite any sayings from Jesus, the so-called argument from silence.[88][89][90][q 17] Some mythicists have argued that the Pauline epistles are from a later date than usually assumed, and therefore not a reliable source on the life of Jesus.[91][93][94]
- The gospels are not historical records, but a fictitious historical narrative—mythicists argue that although the gospels seem to present a historical framework, they are not historical records, but theological writings,[95][96] myth or legendary fiction resembling the Hero archetype.[97][98] They impose "a fictitious historical narrative" on a "mythical cosmic savior figure",[99][89] weaving together various pseudo-historical Jesus traditions,[100][101] though there may have been a real historical person, of whom close to nothing can be known.[102][need quotation to verify]
- There are no independent eyewitness accounts—No independent eyewitness accounts survive, in spite of the fact that many authors were writing at that time.[103][99] Early second-century Roman accounts contain very little evidence[104][105] and may depend on Christian sources.[95][106]
- Jesus was a mythological being, who was concretized in the Gospels—early Christianity was widely diverse and syncretistic, sharing common philosophical and religious ideas with other religions of the time.[107] It arose in the Greco-Roman world of the first and second centuries AD, synthesizing Greek Stoicism and Neoplatonism with Jewish Old Testament writings[108][109][79] and the exegetical methods of Philo,[104][107][110] creating the mythological figure of Jesus. Paul refers to Jesus as an exalted being, and is probably writing about either a mythical[89] or supernatural entity,[q 18] a celestial deity[q 9] named Jesus.[111][112][113][web 9] This deity is derived from personified aspects of God, notably the personification of Wisdom, or "a savior figure patterned after similar figures within ancient mystery religions,"[q 8][7][q 19] which were often (but not always) a dying-and-rising god.[114][115][116] While Paul may also contain proto-Gnostic ideas,[117][118] some mythicists have argued that Paul may refer to a historical person who may have lived in a dim past, long before the beginnings of the Common Era.[80][82][119]
Mainstream and mythicist views on the arguments
Lack of detailed biographical information in Pauline epistles
Dating and attribution
Mainstream view
The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to 50–60 AD and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.[120][q 20] Most scholars view the Pauline letters as essential elements in the study of the historical Jesus,[120][121][122][123] and the development of early Christianity.[29] Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker",[124] who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus,[29] building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world,[29] thereby creating the faith that became Christianity.[124]
Mythicist view
Mythicists agree on the importance of the Pauline epistles, some agreeing with this early dating, and taking the Pauline epistles as their point of departure from mainstream scholarship.[89] They argue that those letters point solely into the direction of a celestial or mythical being, or contain no definitive information on a historical Jesus. Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles, raising the possibility that they represent a later, more developed strand of early Christian thought.
Theologian Willem Christiaan van Manen of the Dutch school of radical criticism noted various anachronisms in the Pauline epistles. Van Manen claimed that they could not have been written in their final form earlier than the 2nd century. He also noted that the Marcionite school was the first to publish the epistles, and that Marcion (c. 85 – c. 160) used them as justification for his gnostic and docetic views that Jesus' incarnation was not in a physical body. Van Manen also studied Marcion's version of Galatians in contrast to the canonical version and argued that the canonical version was a later revision that de-emphasized the Gnostic aspects.[125]
Price also argues for a later dating of the epistles, and sees them as a compilation of fragments (possibly with a Gnostic core),[126] contending that Marcion was responsible for much of the Pauline corpus or even wrote the letters himself. Price criticizes other Christ myth theorists for holding the mid-first-century dating of the epistles for their own apologetical reasons.[127][note 6]
Lack of biographical information
Mainstream view
According to theologian Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel University,[129] modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus", viewing Jesus as "a recent contemporary".[130][131] Yet, according to Christopher Tuckett, "ven if we had no other sources, we could still infer some things about Jesus from Paul's letters."[132][note 2]
Mythicist view
Robert Price says that Paul does not refer to Jesus' earthly life, also not when that life might have provided convenient examples and justifications for Paul's teachings. Instead, revelation seems to have been a prominent source for Paul's knowledge about Jesus.[76]
The Gospels are not historical records
Mainstream view
Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography,[133][134][135][136][137] a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.[138][note 7] Biblical scholarship regards the gospels to be the literary manifestation of oral traditions that originated during the life of a historical Jesus, who according to Dunn had a profound impact on his followers.[142]
Mythicist view
Mythicists argue that in the gospels "a fictitious historical narrative" was imposed on the "mythical cosmic savior figure" created by Paul.[99] According to Robert Price, the gospels "smack of fictional composition",[web 10] arguing that they are a type of legendary fiction[97] and that the story of Jesus portrayed in the gospels fits the mythic hero archetype.[97][98] The mythic hero archetype, present in many cultures, often has a miraculous conception or virgin births heralded by wise men and marked by a star, is tempted by or fights evil forces, dies on a hill, appears after death and then ascends to heaven.[143] According to Earl Doherty, the gospels are "essentially allegory and fiction".[144]
According to Wells in his later writings, a historical Jesus existed, whose teachings were preserved in the Q source.[145] Wells said the gospels weave together two Jesus narratives, namely the Galilean preacher of the Q document, and Paul's mythical Jesus.[145] Doherty disagrees with Wells regarding the teacher of the Q-document, arguing that he was an allegorical character who personified Wisdom and came to be regarded as the founder of the Q-community.[100][146] According to Doherty, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly Gentile community.[100]
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Christ_myth_theoryText je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk