The Christ Myth

The Christ Myth

The time since the appearance of the second edition was too short for any material alterations to be undertaken in the third edition now appearing. However, the phraseology here and there has been improved and many things put more strongly. Above all, the famous passage in Tacitus and the passage 1 Cor. ii. 23 et seq. has been so handled that its lack of significance as regards the existence of an historical Jesus should now appear more clearly than hitherto. That Paul in reality is not a witness for an historical Jesus and is wrongly considered as the foundation of the faith in such a figure, should be already established for every unprejudiced person as the result of the discussion so far on the Christ Myth. The Protestantenblatt finds itself now compelled to the admission that the historical image of the person of Jesus as a matter of fact can no longer be clearly recognised (No. 6, 1910). How then does it fare with the new bases of Schmiedel? To no refutation of the assertions which I represent has greater significance been hitherto ascribed on the theological side than to those supposed supports of a really scientific life of Jesus (in the discussions of the Christ Myth this has again received the strongest expression). And yet these bases were advanced by their originator obviously with a view to a conception quite different from mine, and, as I have now shown, do not [22]affect, generally speaking, the view represented by me regarding the rise of the supposed historical picture of Jesus. When, above all, the historical references to Jesus are supposed to be contained in them, and these, according to the Protestantenblatt, lie like blocks of granite in my paththen this is a pure illusion of the theologians. As can be conceived, my assertion that a pre-Christian cult of Jesus existed has found the most decisive rejection. This, however, is for the most part only due to the fact that the researches in this connection of the American, Smith, and the Englishman, Robertson, were not known, and, moreover, the opinion was held that one need not trouble about these foreigners, who further were not specialists. And yet Gunkel, in his work Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstndnis des Neuen Testaments, had already sufficiently prepared that view, as one might have thought, when, among other things, he declares that even before Jesus there existed in Jewish syncretistic circles a belief in the death and resurrection of Christ.1 Again, it can only be rejected without more ado by such as seek the traces of the pre-Christian cult of Jesus in well-worn places and will only allow that to be proved which they have established by direct original documentary evidence before their eyes. In this connection it is forgotten that we are dealing with a secret cult, the existence of which we can decide upon only by indirect means. It is forgotten also that the hypothesis of a pre-Christian cult of Jesus, if urged upon us from another quarter, cannot be forthwith rejected because it does not suit the current views, and because it may be that it is impossible for the time being to place it beyond all doubt. Where everything is so hypothetical, uncertain, and covered with darkness, [23]as is the case with the origins of Christianity, every hypothesis should be welcomed and tested which appears to be in some way or the other suitable for opening up a new point of view and clearing away the darkness. For as Dunkmann says in his sympathetic and genuine discussion of The Christ Myth: Irregularities and even violences of combination must be borne in science for the simple reason that our sources are too scanty and full of contradictions. Our hypotheses will in all such cases have something rash, bold, and surprising in them; if even they are in the main correct, i.e., if they are irrefutable according to the method of investigation (Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Jesus, und Jesus der Christ, 1910, 55). But if that very hypothesis is not established, yet this makes no difference in the fact that there existed a pre-Christian Jesus Christ, at least as a complex myth, and this quite suffices for the explanation of the Pauline Christology and the so-called original community of Jerusalem. I can, accordingly, only regard it as a misleading of the public when the other side, after rejecting the hypothesis of a pre-Christian cult of Jesus, bear themselves as though they had thereby taken away the foundations for the whole body of my views regarding an historical Jesus. Meanwhile the storm which has been raised against my book in theological circles and in the Press, and has even led to mass meetings of protest in the Busch Circus and in the Dom at Berlin, shows me that I have hit the bulls-eye with my performance and have in truth touched the sore point of Christianity. The way in which the battle is being waged, the means by which my opponents attempt to disparage the author of The Christ Myth, or to make me ridiculous in the eyes of the public by personal slanders, their habit of trying to injure me by throwing doubt on my intellectual [24]capabilities, and to undermine my scientific honour and official position (Bornemann, Beth)all this can only make me more determined to continue the work of illumination that I have begun, and only proves to me that my Christ Myth cannot be so absolutely unscientific and so completely a quantit ngligeable as its opponents are disposed to represent it. ......Buy Now (To Read More)

Product details

Ebook Number: 45540
Author: Drews, Arthur
Release Date: Apr 30, 2014
Format: eBook
Language: English

Contributors

Translator: Burns, C. Delisle, 1879-1942