Misplaced Pages

Christ myth theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:18, 28 April 2006 editA.J.A. (talk | contribs)2,782 edits Remove content which is a) off topic and b) factually inaccurate at significant points← Previous edit Revision as of 17:37, 28 April 2006 edit undoA.J.A. (talk | contribs)2,782 edits More revisionsNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
The '''Jesus Myth''' is a historical ] usually associated with a ] position on the ], which claims that ] did not exist as an historical figure, but was, instead, an abstract, symbolic, and ] allusion to a higher knowledge. The ], based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians{{ref|opponents}}. The '''Jesus Myth''' is a historical ] usually associated with a ] position on the ], which claims that ] did not exist as an historical figure, but was, instead, an abstract, symbolic, and ] allusion to a higher knowledge. The ], based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians{{ref|opponents}}.


⚫ The term "Jesus Myth" covers a broad range of ideas sharing the common premise that the narrative of the ] portrays a figure who never actually lived. Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as ] and ]. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a ]. According to Frazer, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.
==Background==


⚫ No peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists and it has had little impact on the consensus among New Testament academics of Jesus' historicity.
⚫ The term "Jesus Myth" actually covers a broad range of ideas, but they all fundamentally share the common premise that the narrative of the ] portrays a figure who never actually lived. Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as ] and ]. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a ]. According to Frazer, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.


===Ancient fore-runners?===


==History==
⚫ Some, including ] and ] in their book ], have suggested that the idea itself is as old as the New Testament as the ] warns of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This view was shared by ] (110-160 A.D.), who compiled the first version of the New Testament as early as 144 A.D., and whose followers, the Marcionites, continued until the 4th Century.


⚫ Some, including ] and ] in their book ], have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing the ]'s warning of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." All reputable scholars of the period believe that these early quotes refer to ], belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.
], Bishop of Antioch, in 115 A.D. in the "Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, near Zarbus," urged her: "Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His birth according to the flesh; and there are many at present who suffer under this disease." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in chapter 7 says: "For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist," apparently quoting 1 John 4:3.


⚫ The first proponent of this theory was probably ] ] ], a ] thinker who argued that the true founder of ] was the Alexandrian ] ], who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with ] mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the ], were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.
Proponents argue that had Jesus been a true historical figure there would not have been such a large number of prominent people who denied his existence, or an even larger number who defended him. Such controversies never developed over other contemporary religious figures (e.g., John the Baptist, Paul, James the Just, Hillel, Honi the Circledrawer). Scholars of the period however believe that these early quotes refer to ], belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.


⚫ By the early ] a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and ] ]. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was ]'s ''The Christ-Myth'' (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.
==Early proponents==


⚫ While aspects of the theory were influential, mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.
⚫ The first scholarly proponent of this theory was probably ] ] ], a ] thinker who argued that the true founder of ] was the Alexandrian ] ], who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with ] mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under Dutch Bible scholars such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the ], were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.


⚫ In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by ] and ] (''The Jesus Legend'' and ''The Jesus Myth''), as well as by ] and ] (co-authors of '' ]'' and ''Jesus and the Lost Goddess''), and the ] (author of '']'').
⚫ By the early ] a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory, ranging from the highly speculative to the more scholarly. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and ] ]. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was ]'s ''The Christ-Myth'' (1909) which brought together the scholarship of the day in defence of the idea that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.


==Claims==
⚫ While aspects of the theory were influential, most mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion that "Jesus" was little more than a fiction, arguing that the ], Pauline epistles and ] contained some reliable information about the events they describe. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.

==Recent scholarship==

⚫ In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by ] and ] (''The Jesus Legend'' and ''The Jesus Myth''), as well as by ], philosopher and expert on mysticism, and ], a scholar of ] (co-authors of '' ]'' and ''Jesus and the Lost Goddess''), and the noted humanist ] (author of '']''), a scholar of Ancient History and Classical Languages.

There are many different views regarding the nature of the early texts. Earl Doherty argues that Jesus is a historicized mythic figure created out of the ], whom the early Christians experienced in visions, as ] says he did. ], on the other hand, argues that Jesus is the deliberate and malefic creation of powerful ] of the family of ], who sought to divide and destroy ]. Hence in Atwill's version, there really is a historical Jesus, but he is Vespasian's son Titus, and the gospels are a complex allegory of his conquest of ].

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory do not agree on the dating and meaning of the early Christian texts, with recent advocates like Doherty holding to traditional scholarly dating that puts the gospels toward the end of the ], and others, like ] (''The Fabricated Paul''), arguing that the early Christian texts are largely forgeries and products of the mid and late ].

Presently, most New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity. Nevertheless, ] has infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour with his website and publication of his book, ''].'' Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favourable reviews by skeptics Dr. ] and ] .

⚫ No peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists and it has had little impact on the consensus among New Testament academics of Jesus' historicity.


Figures alleged to have been models for Jesus include:


*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


==Notes== ==Notes==

Revision as of 17:37, 28 April 2006

Template:Totally disputed

The Jesus Myth is a historical theory usually associated with a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, which claims that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure, but was, instead, an abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical allusion to a higher knowledge. The theory, based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians.

The term "Jesus Myth" covers a broad range of ideas sharing the common premise that the narrative of the Gospels portrays a figure who never actually lived. Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as Max Müller and James Frazer. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a dying and reviving god. According to Frazer, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.

No peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists and it has had little impact on the consensus among New Testament academics of Jesus' historicity.


History

Some, including Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their book The Jesus Mysteries, have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing the Second Epistle of John's warning of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." All reputable scholars of the period believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

The first proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.

While aspects of the theory were influential, mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.

In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth), as well as by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (co-authors of The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess), and the Earl Doherty (author of The Jesus Puzzle).

Claims

Figures alleged to have been models for Jesus include:

Notes

1. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels; Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word; Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels, and Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.

2. G.L. Borchert, "Docetism" in Elwell Evangelical Dictionary; Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909/2003; D.C. Duling & N. Perrin, The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 1993; "Docetism", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. "Book 24 - John's Second Letter". J.B.Phillips, "The New Testament in Modern English", 1962 edition.

See also

References

  • Atwill, Joseph. 2005. The Roman Origins of Christianity.
  • Atwill, Joseph. 2005. Caesar's Messiah.
  • Brodie, Thomas L. 2000. The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an interpretive synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a literary model for the Gospels. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.
  • Doherty, E.,The Jesus Puzzle (1999; revised edition 2000) ISBN 0968601405
  • Ellegard, Alvar. 1999. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ. London: Century.
  • France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus.
  • Freke, T. and Gandy, P. The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, ISBN 0609807986
  • Meier, John. 1987. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
  • Price, Robert. 2004. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash. In Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A., eds. The Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation of Formative Judaism.
  • Price, Robert. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
  • Price, Robert. 2000. Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
  • Sanders, E. P. 1995. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin.
  • Sherwin-White, A. N. 1963. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford.
  • Theissen, G., and Merz, A. 1998. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress
  • Thompson, Thomas L. 2005. The Messiah Myth. New York: Basic Books.
  • Van Voorst, R. Jesus Outside of the New Testament.
  • Wells, G. A. 1999. The Jesus Myth. Peru, IL: Open Court (Carus Publishing)
  • Wells, G. A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus.

External links

Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

Supporting a historical Jesus

Categories: