Definition: update
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:06, 3 March 2017
Line 5:
Line 5:
== Definition ==
== Definition ==
−
===Pre-
1950
===
+
===Pre-
1930
===
* This volume on "The Christ" was written by one who recognizes in the Jesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate step, between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought. '''By the Christ is understood the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth.''' [...] '''It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology''' [...] Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but '''the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.''' [...] While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.
* This volume on "The Christ" was written by one who recognizes in the Jesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate step, between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought. '''By the Christ is understood the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth.''' [...] '''It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology''' [...] Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but '''the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.''' [...] While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.
::{{cite book | last = Remsburg | first = John E. | title = The Christ | publisher = Truth Seeker Co | year = 1909 | location = New York | url = http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46986 | isbn = 0879759240}}
::{{cite book | last = Remsburg | first = John E. | title = The Christ | publisher = Truth Seeker Co | year = 1909 | location = New York | url = http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46986 | isbn = 0879759240}}
Line 11:
Line 11:
*[Per a review of ''The Christ Myth'' (1910)] The main result at which the author [Arthur Drews] arrives is that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels is a largely humanised form of a pre-Christian cult-god of that name ...[and it is also] possible that there was a great teacher and healer bearing the same name [Jesus], who was confounded with that supposed deity.
*[Per a review of ''The Christ Myth'' (1910)] The main result at which the author [Arthur Drews] arrives is that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels is a largely humanised form of a pre-Christian cult-god of that name ...[and it is also] possible that there was a great teacher and healer bearing the same name [Jesus], who was confounded with that supposed deity.
::[https://archive.org/stream/hibbertjournal09londuoft#page/658/mode/1up T. K. Cheyne of Oxford (1911). The Hibbert journal, Volume 9, Issues 3-4 pg 658]
::[https://archive.org/stream/hibbertjournal09londuoft#page/658/mode/1up T. K. Cheyne of Oxford (1911). The Hibbert journal, Volume 9, Issues 3-4 pg 658]
+
+
*Professor Case’s summary which declares: “The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus’s earthly career, and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question” [...] The assertion that “the New Testament data are perfectly clear etc.” ignores the whole symbolic interpretation set forth in ''Ecce Deus''. If this interpretation be in large measure correct, then the New Testament data would seem to be perfectly clear in their testimony against the historicity in question. Unless the error of that interpretation be shown, this leading argument in Professor Case’s summary falls to the ground.
+
::{{cite book|last=Smith|first=William Benjamin|editor=Paul Carus|title=The Open Court, a Monthly Magazine|volume=26:10|year=1912|publisher=The Open court publishing co.|pages=613f|chapter=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XLhZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA604 The Historicity of Jesus]|quote=Case, S. J. (1912). The Historicity of Jesus. University of Chicago Press. p. 269f.}}
+
+
* My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.
+
::Frazer, Sir James George (1913) ''The golden bough: a study in magic and religion: Volume 9'' Page 412;
+
::Per Frazer et al., Albert Schweitzer added two new chapters to the 1913 revised edition of his work, ''Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung'', 2. Auflage. "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, '''who contested the historical existence of Jesus'''." <small>(Schweitzer (1931), ''Out of my life and thought: an autobiography'', p. 125.)</small>
*The views that Dr. Conybeare here investigates are ...those of the extreme left wing who flatly deny the historical existence even of the Jesus of the Gospels. These champions of the Christ-myth theory contend that the Jesus-figure is that of a syncretic god subsequently humanised by the invention of a pseudo-history.
*The views that Dr. Conybeare here investigates are ...those of the extreme left wing who flatly deny the historical existence even of the Jesus of the Gospels. These champions of the Christ-myth theory contend that the Jesus-figure is that of a syncretic god subsequently humanised by the invention of a pseudo-history.
Line 16:
Line 23:
* Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder.
* Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder.
−
::
Maurice
Goguel
,
"
Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ
", ''
Harvard Theological Review
'' 19 (2),
1926
, pp
.
117–118
+
::
{{cite
journal|last=
Goguel
|first=Maurice|authorlink=w:Maurice
Goguel|title=
Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ
|journal=
Harvard Theological Review
|date=April
1926
|volume=19|issue=02|pages=115–142|doi=10
.
1017/S001781600000763X|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/div-classtitlerecent-french-discussion-of-the-historical-existence-of-jesus-christdiv/67E220B531FE6D3C81EE56D5EFFF4FA4}}
−
−
* My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.
−
::Frazer, Sir James George (1913) ''The golden bough: a study in magic and religion: Volume 9'' Page 412;
−
: [Per Frazer et al., Albert Schweitzer added two new chapters to the 1913 revised edition of his work, ''Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung'', 2. Auflage.] I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, '''who contested the historical existence of Jesus'''.
−
::Schweitzer, Albert (1931), ''Out of my life and thought: an autobiography'', p. 125.
+
===1930s===
* [T]he sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte lends colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure.
* [T]he sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte lends colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure.
::{{cite book|last=Wood|first=Herbert George|title=Christianity and the nature of history|year=1934|publisher=The University Press|location=Cambridge, England|page=40}}
::{{cite book|last=Wood|first=Herbert George|title=Christianity and the nature of history|year=1934|publisher=The University Press|location=Cambridge, England|page=40}}
Line 24:
Line 32:
::{{cite book|last=Dodd|first=Charles Harold|title=History and the Gospel|year=1938|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|pages=16–17}}
::{{cite book|last=Dodd|first=Charles Harold|title=History and the Gospel|year=1938|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|pages=16–17}}
+
===1940s===
* (John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus perhaps more than one having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.
* (John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus perhaps more than one having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.
:# The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.
:# The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.