Wikipedia pages on sin, orginal sin, biblical critcism etc.

Sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).

TAFI star
 This is Wikipedia's current article for improvement – and you can help edit it!
 You can discuss how to improve it on its talk page and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.
See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and place this article on their watchlist.



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)



 A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of careless living are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]


Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for their sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation.[15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
 Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[8]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[16] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[17]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
—[Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:

“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—Ahmad and Ad-Darmi
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:

Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:

Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
—Qur'an, Az-Zumar
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Mainstream Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law for Jews, or the seven Noahide laws for Gentiles as a sin.[18] Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. The in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21][22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ "Purgatory". Work of the Holy Angels. Archived from the original on 20 August 2013.
7.Jump up ^ "The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Holy Spirit Interactive. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.^ Jump up to: a b "Original Sin". Catholic Encyclopedia. 1 February 1911. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "sin". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved 11 April 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
17.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
18.Jump up ^ "The Seven Noachide Laws - Jewish Virtual Library". Jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life". Torah.org. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot)". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Jews for Judaism. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
 Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 15 June 2015, at 02:12.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin










Sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).

TAFI star
 This is Wikipedia's current article for improvement – and you can help edit it!
 You can discuss how to improve it on its talk page and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.
See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and place this article on their watchlist.



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)



 A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of careless living are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]


Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for their sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation.[15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
 Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[8]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[16] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[17]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
—[Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:

“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—Ahmad and Ad-Darmi
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:

Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:

Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
—Qur'an, Az-Zumar
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Mainstream Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law for Jews, or the seven Noahide laws for Gentiles as a sin.[18] Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. The in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21][22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ "Purgatory". Work of the Holy Angels. Archived from the original on 20 August 2013.
7.Jump up ^ "The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Holy Spirit Interactive. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.^ Jump up to: a b "Original Sin". Catholic Encyclopedia. 1 February 1911. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "sin". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved 11 April 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
17.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
18.Jump up ^ "The Seven Noachide Laws - Jewish Virtual Library". Jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life". Torah.org. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot)". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Jews for Judaism. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
 Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 15 June 2015, at 02:12.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin









Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).


 It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.



 Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.


Contents  [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

History of the doctrine[edit]



Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]



Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]



 Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66][better source needed]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(ِAllah SWT) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:

Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410[self-published source]
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology


Adam ·
 Evil ·
 The Fall ·
 Original sin ·
 Christian views on sin ·
 Imputation of sin ·
 Other views on sin ·
 Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

See also Apologetics ·
 Soteriology ·
 Demonology
 

  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Systematic theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin











Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 June 2015, at 03:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin










Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).


 It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.



 Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.


Contents  [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

History of the doctrine[edit]



Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]



Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]



 Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66][better source needed]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(ِAllah SWT) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:

Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410[self-published source]
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology


Adam ·
 Evil ·
 The Fall ·
 Original sin ·
 Christian views on sin ·
 Imputation of sin ·
 Other views on sin ·
 Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

See also Apologetics ·
 Soteriology ·
 Demonology
 

  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Systematic theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin











Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 June 2015, at 03:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin









Historical Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all.[1][2]
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He preached the salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer.[17] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[18] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[19] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[20] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.[27][28][29] By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.[30][31][32]
Part of a series on
Jesus

Jesus in Christianity[show]


























Jesus in Islam[show]










Background[show]





Jesus in history[show]










Perspectives on Jesus[show]












Jesus in culture[show]




Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Islam portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   


Contents  [hide]
1 Historical elements 1.1 Existence 1.1.1 Evidence of Jesus
1.2 Portraits of the historical Jesus
2 Ministry of Jesus 2.1 Works and miracles
2.2 Jesus as divine 2.2.1 Messiah
2.2.2 Son of God
2.2.3 Son of Man
2.2.4 Other depictions
2.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
2.4 Ministry and teachings 2.4.1 Length of ministry
2.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
2.4.3 Eschatology
2.4.4 Laconic sage
2.4.5 Table fellowship
2.4.6 Disciples
2.4.7 Asceticism
2.5 Jerusalem 2.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
2.5.2 Temple disturbance
2.6 Crucifixion
2.7 Burial and Empty Tomb
2.8 Resurrection appearances
3 Methods of research
4 Criticism of Jesus research methods 4.1 Theological bias
4.2 Lack of methodological soundness
4.3 Scarcity of sources
4.4 Myth theory
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links

Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Evidence of Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Historical reliability of the Gospels, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[40][41]
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[44][45][46][47]
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[49] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[50] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.[49][51][52][53][54][55][55][56][57]
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Portraits of the historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.[59] Leading scholars in the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.[59] Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."[59] This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by followers after his death.[59] The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.[59] The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic.[59] Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.[59] In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[59]
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Works and miracles[edit]



 Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).[citation needed]
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]
Jesus as divine[edit]
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[18] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[60] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[18][60]
Messiah[edit]
Main article: Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[60] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[60] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[61] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Son of God[edit]
Main article: Son of God
Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[60] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.[62] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[60] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[60]
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[63][64]
Son of Man[edit]
Main article: Son of Man
The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[60] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[60] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[65]
Other depictions[edit]
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[66]
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".[67] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[68] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[18][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist[edit]
Main article: John the Baptist



 Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[71] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[72] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[72]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[19]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[72]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]
Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[77] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]
Ministry and teachings[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.
Length of ministry[edit]
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[79] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[80] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[81][82] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[83]
Parables and paradoxes[edit]
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[19]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[70]
Eschatology[edit]
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[84]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".[85] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[86]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[19]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[87]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[87]
Laconic sage[edit]
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[88] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[88] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[88]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[89] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.
Table fellowship[edit]
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[19] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[19] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[70] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[70]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[19] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[19] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[70]
Disciples[edit]
Main article: Disciple (Christianity)
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[90] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[91] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[92] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[90]
The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus, with an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve.[citation needed] In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[93]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[19]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[19] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[94]
Asceticism[edit]
See also: Evangelical counsels
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[95] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[96] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[97] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."[98]
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[99] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.
Jerusalem[edit]



 The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[100]
Entrance to Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Palm Sunday
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[70]
Temple disturbance[edit]
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[70] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[70] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[70]
Crucifixion[edit]



Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[70] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[101][102][103] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[104] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[69] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[105]
The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[70] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[106]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.



Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood,[107] and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[108] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[109]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
Burial and Empty Tomb[edit]
Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[110] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[114] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[115] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[116] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.[119] Michael Grant wrote:

[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[120]
However, Marcus Borg notes:

the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[121]
Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[122]
Resurrection appearances[edit]
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus



The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[70] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[123] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:

It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[124]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[125]
Methods of research[edit]
See also: Quest for the historical Jesus



Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus
In the early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.[126][127] Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate "quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various portraits of his life using historical methods.[21][128] While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.[129]
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948.[129] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends.[130] Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns.[130] Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism.[131] This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[131]
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s.[129] The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.[129]
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921.[129] The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him.[132] The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.[133] The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.[129]
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced.[129] This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves.[129] The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.[129] This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.[129]
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[134] A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.[135] While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines.[135]
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived[136][137] or on the evidence concerning his family.[138][139][140] The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]
Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]
Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]
Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]
According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[155]
Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[23][156][157] Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[23][158]
Scarcity of sources[edit]
Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[159][160] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.[125]
Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[161] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[162]
In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[163][164][165]
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.[166]
See also[edit]
Academic approachBiblical archaeology
Biblical criticism
Biblical manuscript
Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
Criterion of dissimilarity
Criticism of the Bible
Historical background of the New Testament
Historicity of Jesus Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Historicity of the Bible
Jesus Seminar
Christian approachChronology of Jesus
Detailed Christian timeline
Gospel harmony
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Ministry of Jesus
Associated sitesÆnon
Al Maghtas
Bethabara
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Qasr el Yahud
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
3.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, p 779, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA779&dq=Historical+Jesus,+Quest+of+the.%22+Oxford+Dictionary+of+the+Christian+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZPszVN7tN4XEPbyzgMAO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20Jesus%2C%20Quest%20of%20the.%22%20Oxford%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20Christian%20Church&f=false
4.Jump up ^ Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
5.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford University Press pp. ix-xi
6.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
7.^ Jump up to: a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
8.Jump up ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
9.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.^ Jump up to: a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Jump up ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
16.Jump up ^ John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
17.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 10. Jesus as healer: the miracles of Jesus.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
19.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
20.Jump up ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
21.^ Jump up to: a b c The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
22.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
25.^ Jump up to: a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
26.^ Jump up to: a b Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
27.^ Jump up to: a b c Allison, Dale (February 2009). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
28.^ Jump up to: a b c John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
30.Jump up ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
31.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (13 Apr 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
32.Jump up ^ Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (1 Aug 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
33.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
34.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
35.Jump up ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
36.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
37.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15
38.Jump up ^ "What about the resurrection? ... Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. ... But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian" Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (2 February 2010)
39.Jump up ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181
40.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431-436
41.Jump up ^ Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39-53
42.Jump up ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 90-232-2653-4.
43.Jump up ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
44.Jump up ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pages 662-663
45.Jump up ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 page 496
46.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83
47.Jump up ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285
48.Jump up ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
49.^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
50.Jump up ^ Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127
51.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
52.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.
53.Jump up ^ The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA52&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
54.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
55.^ Jump up to: a b Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false
56.Jump up ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
57.Jump up ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
58.Jump up ^ Schachter/H.Freedman, Jacob. "Sanhedrin". come-and-hear.com. The Soncino Press. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1–15.
60.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
61.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
62.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
63.Jump up ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
64.Jump up ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
65.Jump up ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005). The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study. Eisenbrauns (EISENBRAUNS). p. 325. ISBN 1575061007.
66.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
67.Jump up ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
68.Jump up ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
69.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
70.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
71.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
72.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
73.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
74.Jump up ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
75.Jump up ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
76.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
77.Jump up ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
78.Jump up ^ Mark 7:24-30
79.Jump up ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
80.Jump up ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
81.Jump up ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
82.Jump up ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
83.Jump up ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
84.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
85.Jump up ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
86.Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
87.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
89.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 103-104.
90.^ Jump up to: a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
91.Jump up ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
92.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
93.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
94.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
95.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
96.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
97.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
98.Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
99.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
100.Jump up ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
101.Jump up ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
102.Jump up ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
103.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
104.Jump up ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
105.Jump up ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
106.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
107.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
108.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pp. 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
109.Jump up ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
110.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
111.Jump up ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
112.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
113.Jump up ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
114.Jump up ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
115.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
116.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
117.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
118.Jump up ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
119.Jump up ^ Mark W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos Press, 2006) p. 211-212
120.Jump up ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
121.Jump up ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
122.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
123.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
124.Jump up ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
125.^ Jump up to: a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
126.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
127.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
128.Jump up ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
129.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
130.^ Jump up to: a b The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
131.^ Jump up to: a b Interpreting the New Testament by Daniel J. Harrington (Jun 1990) ISBN 0814651240 pages 96-98
132.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (30 Jun 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
133.Jump up ^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
134.Jump up ^ "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
135.^ Jump up to: a b Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132
136.Jump up ^ Mason, Steve (2002), "Josephus and the New Testament" (Baker Academic)
137.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2012)"Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" (Simon & Schuster)
138.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert (1998), "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Watkins)
139.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions)
140.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2007), "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"
141.Jump up ^ "Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism".
142.Jump up ^ Hendel, Ronald (June 2010). "Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship". Retrieved 2011-01-06. "... The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship ..."
143.Jump up ^ Meier, John. "Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier". St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved Jan 6, 2011. "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed."
144.Jump up ^ "Biography Clive Marsh".
145.Jump up ^ Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
146.Jump up ^ "Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin"."My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."
147.Jump up ^ McKnight, Scot (April 9, 2010). "The Jesus We'll Never Know". Retrieved Jan 15, 2011. "One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is ... a historian's genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise."
148.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition."
149.Jump up ^ Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25
150.Jump up ^ T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125)."
151.Jump up ^ Herzog, W. R. (2005). Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 6
152.Jump up ^ Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
153.Jump up ^ "Queen's University:Department of History". Retrieved Jan 22, 2011. "Don Akenson: Professor Irish Studies"
154.Jump up ^ Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
155.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered, by James Dunn; p.102
156.Jump up ^ Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper (Nov 1976) ISBN page 31
157.Jump up ^ Theological Hermeneutics by Angus Paddison (Jun 6, 2005) ISBN 0521849837 Cambridge Univ Press page 43
158.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (Feb 26, 1993) ISBN 0060616296 page xviii
159.Jump up ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 117–125
160.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 ISBN 0-19-512473-1 pages 22–23
161.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."
162.Jump up ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
163.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
164.Jump up ^ God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
165.Jump up ^ "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
166.Jump up ^ Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1
References[edit]
Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8.
Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4.
Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1.
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1.
Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6.
Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected six volume series of which three have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.
External links[edit]
"Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Jesus
































































































Commons page
Wikiquote page




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Jesus and history
Perspectives on Jesus













Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Nordfriisk
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 13:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus










Historical Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all.[1][2]
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He preached the salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer.[17] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[18] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[19] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[20] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.[27][28][29] By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.[30][31][32]
Part of a series on
Jesus

Jesus in Christianity[show]


























Jesus in Islam[show]










Background[show]





Jesus in history[show]










Perspectives on Jesus[show]












Jesus in culture[show]




Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Islam portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   


Contents  [hide]
1 Historical elements 1.1 Existence 1.1.1 Evidence of Jesus
1.2 Portraits of the historical Jesus
2 Ministry of Jesus 2.1 Works and miracles
2.2 Jesus as divine 2.2.1 Messiah
2.2.2 Son of God
2.2.3 Son of Man
2.2.4 Other depictions
2.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
2.4 Ministry and teachings 2.4.1 Length of ministry
2.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
2.4.3 Eschatology
2.4.4 Laconic sage
2.4.5 Table fellowship
2.4.6 Disciples
2.4.7 Asceticism
2.5 Jerusalem 2.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
2.5.2 Temple disturbance
2.6 Crucifixion
2.7 Burial and Empty Tomb
2.8 Resurrection appearances
3 Methods of research
4 Criticism of Jesus research methods 4.1 Theological bias
4.2 Lack of methodological soundness
4.3 Scarcity of sources
4.4 Myth theory
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links

Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Evidence of Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Historical reliability of the Gospels, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[40][41]
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[44][45][46][47]
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[49] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[50] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.[49][51][52][53][54][55][55][56][57]
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Portraits of the historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.[59] Leading scholars in the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.[59] Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."[59] This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by followers after his death.[59] The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.[59] The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic.[59] Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.[59] In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[59]
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Works and miracles[edit]



 Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).[citation needed]
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]
Jesus as divine[edit]
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[18] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[60] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[18][60]
Messiah[edit]
Main article: Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[60] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[60] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[61] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Son of God[edit]
Main article: Son of God
Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[60] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.[62] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[60] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[60]
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[63][64]
Son of Man[edit]
Main article: Son of Man
The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[60] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[60] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[65]
Other depictions[edit]
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[66]
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".[67] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[68] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[18][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist[edit]
Main article: John the Baptist



 Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[71] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[72] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[72]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[19]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[72]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]
Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[77] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]
Ministry and teachings[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.
Length of ministry[edit]
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[79] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[80] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[81][82] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[83]
Parables and paradoxes[edit]
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[19]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[70]
Eschatology[edit]
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[84]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".[85] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[86]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[19]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[87]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[87]
Laconic sage[edit]
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[88] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[88] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[88]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[89] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.
Table fellowship[edit]
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[19] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[19] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[70] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[70]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[19] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[19] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[70]
Disciples[edit]
Main article: Disciple (Christianity)
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[90] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[91] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[92] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[90]
The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus, with an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve.[citation needed] In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[93]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[19]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[19] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[94]
Asceticism[edit]
See also: Evangelical counsels
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[95] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[96] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[97] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."[98]
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[99] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.
Jerusalem[edit]



 The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[100]
Entrance to Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Palm Sunday
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[70]
Temple disturbance[edit]
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[70] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[70] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[70]
Crucifixion[edit]



Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[70] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[101][102][103] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[104] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[69] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[105]
The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[70] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[106]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.



Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood,[107] and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[108] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[109]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
Burial and Empty Tomb[edit]
Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[110] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[114] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[115] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[116] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.[119] Michael Grant wrote:

[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[120]
However, Marcus Borg notes:

the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[121]
Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[122]
Resurrection appearances[edit]
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus



The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[70] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[123] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:

It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[124]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[125]
Methods of research[edit]
See also: Quest for the historical Jesus



Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus
In the early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.[126][127] Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate "quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various portraits of his life using historical methods.[21][128] While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.[129]
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948.[129] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends.[130] Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns.[130] Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism.[131] This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[131]
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s.[129] The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.[129]
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921.[129] The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him.[132] The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.[133] The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.[129]
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced.[129] This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves.[129] The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.[129] This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.[129]
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[134] A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.[135] While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines.[135]
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived[136][137] or on the evidence concerning his family.[138][139][140] The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]
Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]
Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]
Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]
According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[155]
Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[23][156][157] Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[23][158]
Scarcity of sources[edit]
Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[159][160] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.[125]
Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[161] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[162]
In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[163][164][165]
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.[166]
See also[edit]
Academic approachBiblical archaeology
Biblical criticism
Biblical manuscript
Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
Criterion of dissimilarity
Criticism of the Bible
Historical background of the New Testament
Historicity of Jesus Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Historicity of the Bible
Jesus Seminar
Christian approachChronology of Jesus
Detailed Christian timeline
Gospel harmony
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Ministry of Jesus
Associated sitesÆnon
Al Maghtas
Bethabara
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Qasr el Yahud
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
3.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, p 779, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA779&dq=Historical+Jesus,+Quest+of+the.%22+Oxford+Dictionary+of+the+Christian+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZPszVN7tN4XEPbyzgMAO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20Jesus%2C%20Quest%20of%20the.%22%20Oxford%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20Christian%20Church&f=false
4.Jump up ^ Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
5.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford University Press pp. ix-xi
6.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
7.^ Jump up to: a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
8.Jump up ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
9.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.^ Jump up to: a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Jump up ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
16.Jump up ^ John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
17.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 10. Jesus as healer: the miracles of Jesus.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
19.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
20.Jump up ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
21.^ Jump up to: a b c The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
22.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
25.^ Jump up to: a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
26.^ Jump up to: a b Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
27.^ Jump up to: a b c Allison, Dale (February 2009). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
28.^ Jump up to: a b c John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
30.Jump up ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
31.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (13 Apr 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
32.Jump up ^ Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (1 Aug 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
33.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
34.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
35.Jump up ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
36.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
37.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15
38.Jump up ^ "What about the resurrection? ... Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. ... But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian" Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (2 February 2010)
39.Jump up ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181
40.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431-436
41.Jump up ^ Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39-53
42.Jump up ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 90-232-2653-4.
43.Jump up ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
44.Jump up ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pages 662-663
45.Jump up ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 page 496
46.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83
47.Jump up ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285
48.Jump up ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
49.^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
50.Jump up ^ Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127
51.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
52.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.
53.Jump up ^ The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA52&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
54.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
55.^ Jump up to: a b Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false
56.Jump up ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
57.Jump up ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
58.Jump up ^ Schachter/H.Freedman, Jacob. "Sanhedrin". come-and-hear.com. The Soncino Press. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1–15.
60.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
61.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
62.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
63.Jump up ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
64.Jump up ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
65.Jump up ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005). The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study. Eisenbrauns (EISENBRAUNS). p. 325. ISBN 1575061007.
66.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
67.Jump up ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
68.Jump up ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
69.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
70.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
71.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
72.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
73.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
74.Jump up ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
75.Jump up ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
76.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
77.Jump up ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
78.Jump up ^ Mark 7:24-30
79.Jump up ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
80.Jump up ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
81.Jump up ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
82.Jump up ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
83.Jump up ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
84.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
85.Jump up ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
86.Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
87.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
89.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 103-104.
90.^ Jump up to: a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
91.Jump up ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
92.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
93.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
94.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
95.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
96.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
97.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
98.Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
99.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
100.Jump up ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
101.Jump up ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
102.Jump up ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
103.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
104.Jump up ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
105.Jump up ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
106.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
107.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
108.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pp. 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
109.Jump up ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
110.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
111.Jump up ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
112.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
113.Jump up ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
114.Jump up ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
115.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
116.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
117.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
118.Jump up ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
119.Jump up ^ Mark W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos Press, 2006) p. 211-212
120.Jump up ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
121.Jump up ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
122.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
123.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
124.Jump up ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
125.^ Jump up to: a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
126.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
127.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
128.Jump up ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
129.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
130.^ Jump up to: a b The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
131.^ Jump up to: a b Interpreting the New Testament by Daniel J. Harrington (Jun 1990) ISBN 0814651240 pages 96-98
132.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (30 Jun 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
133.Jump up ^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
134.Jump up ^ "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
135.^ Jump up to: a b Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132
136.Jump up ^ Mason, Steve (2002), "Josephus and the New Testament" (Baker Academic)
137.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2012)"Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" (Simon & Schuster)
138.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert (1998), "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Watkins)
139.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions)
140.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2007), "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"
141.Jump up ^ "Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism".
142.Jump up ^ Hendel, Ronald (June 2010). "Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship". Retrieved 2011-01-06. "... The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship ..."
143.Jump up ^ Meier, John. "Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier". St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved Jan 6, 2011. "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed."
144.Jump up ^ "Biography Clive Marsh".
145.Jump up ^ Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
146.Jump up ^ "Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin"."My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."
147.Jump up ^ McKnight, Scot (April 9, 2010). "The Jesus We'll Never Know". Retrieved Jan 15, 2011. "One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is ... a historian's genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise."
148.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition."
149.Jump up ^ Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25
150.Jump up ^ T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125)."
151.Jump up ^ Herzog, W. R. (2005). Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 6
152.Jump up ^ Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
153.Jump up ^ "Queen's University:Department of History". Retrieved Jan 22, 2011. "Don Akenson: Professor Irish Studies"
154.Jump up ^ Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
155.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered, by James Dunn; p.102
156.Jump up ^ Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper (Nov 1976) ISBN page 31
157.Jump up ^ Theological Hermeneutics by Angus Paddison (Jun 6, 2005) ISBN 0521849837 Cambridge Univ Press page 43
158.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (Feb 26, 1993) ISBN 0060616296 page xviii
159.Jump up ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 117–125
160.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 ISBN 0-19-512473-1 pages 22–23
161.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."
162.Jump up ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
163.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
164.Jump up ^ God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
165.Jump up ^ "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
166.Jump up ^ Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1
References[edit]
Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8.
Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4.
Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1.
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1.
Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6.
Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected six volume series of which three have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.
External links[edit]
"Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Jesus
































































































Commons page
Wikiquote page




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Jesus and history
Perspectives on Jesus













Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Nordfriisk
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 13:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
















Biblical criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the Canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a Historical Jesus.
It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History 2.1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
2.2 New Testament
3 Methods and perspectives 3.1 Textual criticism
3.2 Source criticism
3.3 Form criticism and tradition history
3.4 Redaction criticism
3.5 Canonical criticism
3.6 Rhetorical criticism
3.7 Narrative criticism
3.8 Psychological criticism
3.9 Socio-scientific criticism
3.10 Postmodernist criticism
3.11 Feminist exegesis
4 New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus 4.1 Multiple attestation
4.2 Tendencies of the developing tradition
4.3 Embarrassment
4.4 Coherence
4.5 The Crucifixion
4.6 Semitisms
4.7 Sitz im Leben
5 Notable biblical scholars
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links

Background[edit]



 Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Divinity School.
Biblical criticism, defined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts, grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century it was divided between the higher criticism, the study of the composition and history of biblical texts, and lower criticism, the close examination of the text to establish their original or "correct" readings. These terms are largely no longer used, and contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived.
A division is still sometimes made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticism asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time.
Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism, the former concerned the development of texts through time, the latter treating texts as they exist at a particular moment, frequently the so-called "final form", meaning the Bible text as we have it today.
History[edit]
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit]



 Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" (1685), an early work of biblical criticism.
Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians—Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others—who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books; according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that they concluded made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.
Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.
The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".[3] Today the modern Catechism states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".[4]
New Testament[edit]



Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). His The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) demonstrated that 19th century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in Amsterdam. George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David Strauss, Ernest Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the two-source hypothesis (the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as Q). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical.
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine (Marcus Borg).
Methods and perspectives[edit]



Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.
Textual criticism[edit]
Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism") refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, Josephus employed scribes to copy his Antiquities of the Jews. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe A will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe B, and over time the "families" of texts descended from A and B will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".
Textual criticism is a rigorously objective[clarification needed] discipline using a number of specialized methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as Lectio difficilior potior: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".[5] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.[6]
Source criticism[edit]
Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".[7] An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
Form criticism and tradition history[edit]
Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.[9]
Redaction criticism[edit]
Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10] It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.[11]
Canonical criticism[edit]
Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".[12] Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.[1]
Rhetorical criticism[edit]
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Modern application of techniques of rhetorical analysis to biblical texts dates to James Muilenberg in 1968 as a corrective to form criticism, which Muilenberg saw as too generalized and insufficiently specific. For Muilenberg, rhetorical criticism emphasized the unique and unrepeatable message of the writer or speaker as addressed to his audience, including especially the techniques and devices which went into crafting the biblical narrative as it was heard (or read) by its audience. "What Muilenberg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text functions for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.[13]
Narrative criticism[edit]
Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.[14] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.[15]
Psychological criticism[edit]
Psychological biblical criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.
Socio-scientific criticism[edit]
Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, and millenarianism to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticism is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.[16]
Postmodernist criticism[edit]



 The "Tomb of Joshua" at Kifl Haris, a Palestinian village located northwest of the Israeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Postmodernist criticism frequently locates biblical references in a modern setting.
Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics, postcolonialism, and so on". It asks questions like: What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of male and female roles in the Bible?[17]
In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to theology, Israelite history, hermeneutics, and ethics.[18]
Feminist exegesis[edit]
Feminist criticism of the Bible utilizes the same means and essentially strives for the same ends as feminist literary criticism. It is therefore made up of a variety of peoples, including, but not limited to, Jews, people of color, and feminist Christians such as Elisabeth Fiorenza.
New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus[edit]
Multiple attestation[edit]
The criterion of multiple attestation or "independent attestation" is an important tool used by scholars. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better.
The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.[19] There are, however, at least four early, independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as the Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q, and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[20][21]
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of the Church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Tendencies of the developing tradition[edit]
It is important that scholars research the earliest testimonies. To do this, they need to figure out the earliest gospel and the earliest parts of the gospels. Ideally, this material would come from eyewitnesses, but that is not always possible.
The writings of the Church Fathers are helpful in this regard. They wrote that the Hebrew Gospel was the first written while the Gospel of John was later. Also, because certain "laws" govern the transmission of tradition during the oral period, we can, by understanding these "laws", determine which tradition is early and which is late.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Embarrassment[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]
The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.
The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin", the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Coherence[edit]
The Criterion of coherence (also called consistency or conformity) can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic. This criterion holds that a saying and action attributed to Jesus may be accepted as authentic if it coheres with other sayings and actions already established as authentic. While this criterion cannot be used alone, it can broaden the database for what Jesus actually said and did.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
The Crucifixion[edit]
The criterion of the Crucifixion emphasizes that Jesus met a violent death at the hands of Jewish and Roman officials and that the authentic words and actions of Jesus would alienate people, especially powerful people.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Semitisms[edit]
Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, traces of Aramaic in the Gospels argue in favor of a primitive tradition that may go back to Jesus. Semitisms are structured according to general rules that allow Hebrew speakers and hearers to say and hear things according to predictable patterns. Hebrew and Aramaic are linguistically very closely related and they follow similar elementary rules. For example, the pun in Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[22][31]
Sitz im Leben[edit]
Main article: Sitz im Leben
The sayings and actions of the historical Jesus must reflect the Sitz im Leben or the concrete social, political, economic, agricultural, and religious conditions of ancient Palestine, while sayings and actions of Jesus that reflect social, political, economic, agricultural, or religious conditions that existed only outside Palestine or only after the death of Jesus are to be considered inauthentic.[20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][32]
Notable biblical scholars[edit]
William Albright (1891–1971): Professor at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of American biblical archaeology
Albrecht Alt (1883–1956): prominent in early debates about the religion of the biblical patriarchs; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad
Jean Astruc (1684–1776): early French biblical critic, who adapted source criticism to the study of Genesis
Margaret Barker (1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced gnosticism and early Christianity
Walter Bauer (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity
F. C. Baur (1792–1860): explored the secular history of the primitive church
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976): New Testament scholar who defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology
D. A. Carson (1946–): Canadian New Testament scholar of the Gospel of John
John J. Collins (1946–): Irish scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism; he has worked extensively on Jewish messianism and apocalypticism
Frank Moore Cross (1921–2012): American biblical scholar and Harvard professor notable for his interpretations of the Deuteronomistic History, the Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as his work in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy
William G. Dever (1933–): American biblical archaeologist, known for his contributions to the understanding of early Israel
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): applied source criticism to the entire Bible, decided against Mosaic authorship
Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008): linguist who reordered the chronology of New Testament texts and a proponent of the "Jesus Myth Theory"
Bart D. Ehrman (1955–): University of North Carolina professor, who has examined issues of textual corruption and authorship in New Testament and Early Christian texts
Israel Finkelstein (1949–): Israeli archaeologist and Professor at Tel Aviv University, an advocate for re-dating remains previously ascribed to King Solomon to the rule of the Omrides
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812): pioneered the Griesbach hypothesis, which supports the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932): father of form criticism, the study of the oral traditions behind the text of the Pentateuch
Niels Peter Lemche (1945– ): biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen associated with biblical minimalism, which warns against uncritical acceptance of the Bible as history
Bruce Metzger (1914–2007): biblical scholar sometimes referred to as "the dean" of New Testament textual criticism and wrote the definitive The Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1964)
Martin Noth (1902–1968): developed tradition history and scholar on the origins of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History
Robert M. Price ( 1954–): American theologian and philosopher
Rolf Rendtorff (1925–): German critic who advanced an influential non-documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834): German theologian and philosopher whose theoretical hermeneutics underlie much of modern biblical exegesis
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965): German theologian who was a pioneer in the quest for the historical Jesus
John Van Seters (1935–): American Hebrew Bible scholar who favors a supplementary model for the creation of the Pentateuch
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677): Dutch philosopher, who collected discrepancies, contradictions, and anachronisms from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses
Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789): leading French/German encyclopedist, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", the first Life of Jesus describing him as a mere historical man. Translated into English by George Houston and published by him in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison), and New York, 1827
David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): German critic who published influential work on the historical origins of Christian beliefs, most notably in his Das Leben Jesu
Thomas L. Thompson (1939–): outspoken critic of Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): German biblical critic and popularizer of a four-source documentary hypothesis
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849): early German contributor to higher criticism and the study of Pentateuchal origins
Joseph Wheless (1868–1950): American lawyer who traced origins of the scriptures, examining original Hebrew and Greek meanings, and the translations into Latin and English
R. N. Whybray (1923–1997): critiqued the assumptions of source criticism underlying the documentary hypothesis
N. T. Wright (1948-):a retired Anglican bishop and current professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews, Wright is known for the New Perspective on Paul and his Christian Origins and the Question of God series.[33][34]
See also[edit]
Detailed Christian timeline
Essays and Reviews
Gospel harmony
Christian heresy in the modern era - theologians tried for supporting biblical criticism
Historical method
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Pentateuchal criticism
Parallelomania
Timeline of the Bible
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985
2.Jump up ^ Fogarty, page 40.
3.Jump up ^ Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943.
4.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110
5.Jump up ^ Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. "Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel". Bible-researcher.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
6.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "Methods in Old Testament Study", section Textual Criticism, in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 23–45.
7.Jump up ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, "Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts", in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".
8.Jump up ^ Bibledudes.com
9.Jump up ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
10.Jump up ^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
11.Jump up ^ Redaction Criticism.
12.Jump up ^ Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", Theology Today, October 1985.
13.Jump up ^ M.D. Morrison, "Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"
14.Jump up ^ Johannes C. De Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches", Religion & Theology 4/3 (1997).
15.Jump up ^ Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)
16.Jump up ^ Frank S. Frick, Response: Reconstructing Israel's Ancient World, SBL[dead link]
17.Jump up ^ David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000
18.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "The Pyramid and the Net", On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
19.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 Google Link
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009.
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: a comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. pp 54-56
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Blue Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f N. S. Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Gerd Thiessen & Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2002).
29.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 1-118
30.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
31.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 127-128
32.Jump up ^ Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. p 55
33.Jump up ^ [1]
34.Jump up ^ [2]
Further reading[edit]
Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0".
Barenboim Peter, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8.
Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X.
Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2".
Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9".
McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4".
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, 1993, Westminister/John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-25407-1
Rogerson, John (1984). Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. ISBN 978-0-8006-0737-1.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1".
Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1".
Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7".
Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal-Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv
External links[edit]
David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.
Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet Introduction to biblical criticism
Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history


General studies
Biblical criticism ·
 Biblical studies ·
 History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
 The Bible and history ·
 Quest for the historical Jesus ·
 Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
 
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
 Historicity of Jesus ·
 Historicity of the Bible ·
 Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
 List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
 List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
 List of burial places of biblical figures ·
 List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
 List of New Testament papyri ·
 List of New Testament uncials ·
 Historical Jesus
 

Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
 Christ myth theory
 

Bible Portal


  


Categories: Biblical criticism
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Interlingua
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Türkçe
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 03:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism














Biblical criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the Canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a Historical Jesus.
It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History 2.1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
2.2 New Testament
3 Methods and perspectives 3.1 Textual criticism
3.2 Source criticism
3.3 Form criticism and tradition history
3.4 Redaction criticism
3.5 Canonical criticism
3.6 Rhetorical criticism
3.7 Narrative criticism
3.8 Psychological criticism
3.9 Socio-scientific criticism
3.10 Postmodernist criticism
3.11 Feminist exegesis
4 New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus 4.1 Multiple attestation
4.2 Tendencies of the developing tradition
4.3 Embarrassment
4.4 Coherence
4.5 The Crucifixion
4.6 Semitisms
4.7 Sitz im Leben
5 Notable biblical scholars
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links

Background[edit]



 Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Divinity School.
Biblical criticism, defined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts, grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century it was divided between the higher criticism, the study of the composition and history of biblical texts, and lower criticism, the close examination of the text to establish their original or "correct" readings. These terms are largely no longer used, and contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived.
A division is still sometimes made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticism asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time.
Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism, the former concerned the development of texts through time, the latter treating texts as they exist at a particular moment, frequently the so-called "final form", meaning the Bible text as we have it today.
History[edit]
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit]



 Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" (1685), an early work of biblical criticism.
Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians—Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others—who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books; according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that they concluded made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.
Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.
The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".[3] Today the modern Catechism states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".[4]
New Testament[edit]



Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). His The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) demonstrated that 19th century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in Amsterdam. George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David Strauss, Ernest Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the two-source hypothesis (the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as Q). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical.
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine (Marcus Borg).
Methods and perspectives[edit]



Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.
Textual criticism[edit]
Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism") refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, Josephus employed scribes to copy his Antiquities of the Jews. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe A will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe B, and over time the "families" of texts descended from A and B will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".
Textual criticism is a rigorously objective[clarification needed] discipline using a number of specialized methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as Lectio difficilior potior: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".[5] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.[6]
Source criticism[edit]
Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".[7] An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
Form criticism and tradition history[edit]
Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.[9]
Redaction criticism[edit]
Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10] It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.[11]
Canonical criticism[edit]
Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".[12] Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.[1]
Rhetorical criticism[edit]
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Modern application of techniques of rhetorical analysis to biblical texts dates to James Muilenberg in 1968 as a corrective to form criticism, which Muilenberg saw as too generalized and insufficiently specific. For Muilenberg, rhetorical criticism emphasized the unique and unrepeatable message of the writer or speaker as addressed to his audience, including especially the techniques and devices which went into crafting the biblical narrative as it was heard (or read) by its audience. "What Muilenberg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text functions for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.[13]
Narrative criticism[edit]
Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.[14] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.[15]
Psychological criticism[edit]
Psychological biblical criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.
Socio-scientific criticism[edit]
Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, and millenarianism to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticism is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.[16]
Postmodernist criticism[edit]



 The "Tomb of Joshua" at Kifl Haris, a Palestinian village located northwest of the Israeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Postmodernist criticism frequently locates biblical references in a modern setting.
Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics, postcolonialism, and so on". It asks questions like: What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of male and female roles in the Bible?[17]
In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to theology, Israelite history, hermeneutics, and ethics.[18]
Feminist exegesis[edit]
Feminist criticism of the Bible utilizes the same means and essentially strives for the same ends as feminist literary criticism. It is therefore made up of a variety of peoples, including, but not limited to, Jews, people of color, and feminist Christians such as Elisabeth Fiorenza.
New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus[edit]
Multiple attestation[edit]
The criterion of multiple attestation or "independent attestation" is an important tool used by scholars. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better.
The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.[19] There are, however, at least four early, independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as the Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q, and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[20][21]
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of the Church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Tendencies of the developing tradition[edit]
It is important that scholars research the earliest testimonies. To do this, they need to figure out the earliest gospel and the earliest parts of the gospels. Ideally, this material would come from eyewitnesses, but that is not always possible.
The writings of the Church Fathers are helpful in this regard. They wrote that the Hebrew Gospel was the first written while the Gospel of John was later. Also, because certain "laws" govern the transmission of tradition during the oral period, we can, by understanding these "laws", determine which tradition is early and which is late.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Embarrassment[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]
The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.
The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin", the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Coherence[edit]
The Criterion of coherence (also called consistency or conformity) can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic. This criterion holds that a saying and action attributed to Jesus may be accepted as authentic if it coheres with other sayings and actions already established as authentic. While this criterion cannot be used alone, it can broaden the database for what Jesus actually said and did.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
The Crucifixion[edit]
The criterion of the Crucifixion emphasizes that Jesus met a violent death at the hands of Jewish and Roman officials and that the authentic words and actions of Jesus would alienate people, especially powerful people.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Semitisms[edit]
Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, traces of Aramaic in the Gospels argue in favor of a primitive tradition that may go back to Jesus. Semitisms are structured according to general rules that allow Hebrew speakers and hearers to say and hear things according to predictable patterns. Hebrew and Aramaic are linguistically very closely related and they follow similar elementary rules. For example, the pun in Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[22][31]
Sitz im Leben[edit]
Main article: Sitz im Leben
The sayings and actions of the historical Jesus must reflect the Sitz im Leben or the concrete social, political, economic, agricultural, and religious conditions of ancient Palestine, while sayings and actions of Jesus that reflect social, political, economic, agricultural, or religious conditions that existed only outside Palestine or only after the death of Jesus are to be considered inauthentic.[20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][32]
Notable biblical scholars[edit]
William Albright (1891–1971): Professor at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of American biblical archaeology
Albrecht Alt (1883–1956): prominent in early debates about the religion of the biblical patriarchs; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad
Jean Astruc (1684–1776): early French biblical critic, who adapted source criticism to the study of Genesis
Margaret Barker (1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced gnosticism and early Christianity
Walter Bauer (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity
F. C. Baur (1792–1860): explored the secular history of the primitive church
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976): New Testament scholar who defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology
D. A. Carson (1946–): Canadian New Testament scholar of the Gospel of John
John J. Collins (1946–): Irish scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism; he has worked extensively on Jewish messianism and apocalypticism
Frank Moore Cross (1921–2012): American biblical scholar and Harvard professor notable for his interpretations of the Deuteronomistic History, the Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as his work in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy
William G. Dever (1933–): American biblical archaeologist, known for his contributions to the understanding of early Israel
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): applied source criticism to the entire Bible, decided against Mosaic authorship
Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008): linguist who reordered the chronology of New Testament texts and a proponent of the "Jesus Myth Theory"
Bart D. Ehrman (1955–): University of North Carolina professor, who has examined issues of textual corruption and authorship in New Testament and Early Christian texts
Israel Finkelstein (1949–): Israeli archaeologist and Professor at Tel Aviv University, an advocate for re-dating remains previously ascribed to King Solomon to the rule of the Omrides
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812): pioneered the Griesbach hypothesis, which supports the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932): father of form criticism, the study of the oral traditions behind the text of the Pentateuch
Niels Peter Lemche (1945– ): biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen associated with biblical minimalism, which warns against uncritical acceptance of the Bible as history
Bruce Metzger (1914–2007): biblical scholar sometimes referred to as "the dean" of New Testament textual criticism and wrote the definitive The Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1964)
Martin Noth (1902–1968): developed tradition history and scholar on the origins of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History
Robert M. Price ( 1954–): American theologian and philosopher
Rolf Rendtorff (1925–): German critic who advanced an influential non-documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834): German theologian and philosopher whose theoretical hermeneutics underlie much of modern biblical exegesis
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965): German theologian who was a pioneer in the quest for the historical Jesus
John Van Seters (1935–): American Hebrew Bible scholar who favors a supplementary model for the creation of the Pentateuch
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677): Dutch philosopher, who collected discrepancies, contradictions, and anachronisms from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses
Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789): leading French/German encyclopedist, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", the first Life of Jesus describing him as a mere historical man. Translated into English by George Houston and published by him in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison), and New York, 1827
David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): German critic who published influential work on the historical origins of Christian beliefs, most notably in his Das Leben Jesu
Thomas L. Thompson (1939–): outspoken critic of Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): German biblical critic and popularizer of a four-source documentary hypothesis
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849): early German contributor to higher criticism and the study of Pentateuchal origins
Joseph Wheless (1868–1950): American lawyer who traced origins of the scriptures, examining original Hebrew and Greek meanings, and the translations into Latin and English
R. N. Whybray (1923–1997): critiqued the assumptions of source criticism underlying the documentary hypothesis
N. T. Wright (1948-):a retired Anglican bishop and current professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews, Wright is known for the New Perspective on Paul and his Christian Origins and the Question of God series.[33][34]
See also[edit]
Detailed Christian timeline
Essays and Reviews
Gospel harmony
Christian heresy in the modern era - theologians tried for supporting biblical criticism
Historical method
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Pentateuchal criticism
Parallelomania
Timeline of the Bible
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985
2.Jump up ^ Fogarty, page 40.
3.Jump up ^ Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943.
4.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110
5.Jump up ^ Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. "Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel". Bible-researcher.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
6.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "Methods in Old Testament Study", section Textual Criticism, in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 23–45.
7.Jump up ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, "Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts", in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".
8.Jump up ^ Bibledudes.com
9.Jump up ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
10.Jump up ^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
11.Jump up ^ Redaction Criticism.
12.Jump up ^ Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", Theology Today, October 1985.
13.Jump up ^ M.D. Morrison, "Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"
14.Jump up ^ Johannes C. De Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches", Religion & Theology 4/3 (1997).
15.Jump up ^ Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)
16.Jump up ^ Frank S. Frick, Response: Reconstructing Israel's Ancient World, SBL[dead link]
17.Jump up ^ David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000
18.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "The Pyramid and the Net", On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
19.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 Google Link
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009.
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: a comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. pp 54-56
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Blue Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f N. S. Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Gerd Thiessen & Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2002).
29.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 1-118
30.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
31.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 127-128
32.Jump up ^ Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. p 55
33.Jump up ^ [1]
34.Jump up ^ [2]
Further reading[edit]
Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0".
Barenboim Peter, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8.
Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X.
Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2".
Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9".
McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4".
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, 1993, Westminister/John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-25407-1
Rogerson, John (1984). Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. ISBN 978-0-8006-0737-1.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1".
Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1".
Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7".
Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal-Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv
External links[edit]
David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.
Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet Introduction to biblical criticism
Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history


General studies
Biblical criticism ·
 Biblical studies ·
 History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
 The Bible and history ·
 Quest for the historical Jesus ·
 Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
 
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
 Historicity of Jesus ·
 Historicity of the Bible ·
 Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
 List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
 List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
 List of burial places of biblical figures ·
 List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
 List of New Testament papyri ·
 List of New Testament uncials ·
 Historical Jesus
 

Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
 Christ myth theory
 

Bible Portal


  


Categories: Biblical criticism
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Interlingua
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Türkçe
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 03:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism










Biblical studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Bible study (disambiguation).
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible.[1][2] For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences.[1]
Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Academic societies
3 Biblical criticism
4 History of the Bible
5 Original languages
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

Definition[edit]
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.[1] These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.[1]
Academic societies[edit]
Several academic associations and societies promote research in the field. The largest is the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) with around 8,500 members in more than 80 countries. It publishes many books and journals in the biblical studies, including its flagship, the Journal of Biblical Literature. SBL hosts one academic conference in North America and another international conference each year, as well as smaller regional meetings.
Biblical criticism[edit]
The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history.
History of the Bible[edit]
Historical research has often dominated modern biblical studies. Biblical scholars usually try to interpret a particular text within its original historical context and use whatever information is available to reconstruct that setting. Historical criticism aims to determine the provenance, authorship, and process by which ancient texts were composed. Famous theories of historical criticism include the documentary hypothesis which suggests that the Pentateuch was compiled from four different written sources, and different reconstructions of "the historical Jesus" based primarily on the differences among the canonical Gospels.
Original languages[edit]
Most of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, which is the basis of the Christian Old Testament, was written in Biblical Hebrew, though a few chapters were written in Biblical Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, with possible Aramaic undertones, as was the first translation of the Jewish Bible known as the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament. Therefore, Hebrew, Greek and sometimes Aramaic continue to be taught in most universities, colleges and seminaries with strong programs in biblical studies.
See also[edit]
The Bible and history
Biblical hermeneutics
Chronology of the Bible
Higher criticism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (May 18, 2006) ISBN 0199254257 page xvii
2.Jump up ^ Introduction to Biblical Studies, Second Edition by Steve Moyise (Oct 27, 2004) ISBN 0567083977 pages 11–12
Further reading[edit]
The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols., eds. P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, S. L. Greenslade and G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 1969, 1970.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale, 1974.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. "Biblical Scholars, Medieval and Modern," in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 245–258.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
Harrisville, Roy A. & Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Knight, Douglas A. and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Harper & Row, 1986.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sherwood, Yvonne and Stephen D. Moore. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Fortress, 2011.
Sperling, S. David. Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America. Atlanta Scholars Press, 1992.
Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
External links[edit]
Bible Studies - Staying in the Word
Society of Biblical Literature
AcademicBible.com from the German Bible Society
Wabash Center's Internet Guid to Religion: Bible


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology




































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Biblical studies
Christian terminology


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Čeština
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 December 2014, at 01:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies















Biblical studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Bible study (disambiguation).
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible.[1][2] For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences.[1]
Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Academic societies
3 Biblical criticism
4 History of the Bible
5 Original languages
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

Definition[edit]
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.[1] These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.[1]
Academic societies[edit]
Several academic associations and societies promote research in the field. The largest is the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) with around 8,500 members in more than 80 countries. It publishes many books and journals in the biblical studies, including its flagship, the Journal of Biblical Literature. SBL hosts one academic conference in North America and another international conference each year, as well as smaller regional meetings.
Biblical criticism[edit]
The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history.
History of the Bible[edit]
Historical research has often dominated modern biblical studies. Biblical scholars usually try to interpret a particular text within its original historical context and use whatever information is available to reconstruct that setting. Historical criticism aims to determine the provenance, authorship, and process by which ancient texts were composed. Famous theories of historical criticism include the documentary hypothesis which suggests that the Pentateuch was compiled from four different written sources, and different reconstructions of "the historical Jesus" based primarily on the differences among the canonical Gospels.
Original languages[edit]
Most of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, which is the basis of the Christian Old Testament, was written in Biblical Hebrew, though a few chapters were written in Biblical Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, with possible Aramaic undertones, as was the first translation of the Jewish Bible known as the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament. Therefore, Hebrew, Greek and sometimes Aramaic continue to be taught in most universities, colleges and seminaries with strong programs in biblical studies.
See also[edit]
The Bible and history
Biblical hermeneutics
Chronology of the Bible
Higher criticism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (May 18, 2006) ISBN 0199254257 page xvii
2.Jump up ^ Introduction to Biblical Studies, Second Edition by Steve Moyise (Oct 27, 2004) ISBN 0567083977 pages 11–12
Further reading[edit]
The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols., eds. P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, S. L. Greenslade and G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 1969, 1970.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale, 1974.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. "Biblical Scholars, Medieval and Modern," in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 245–258.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
Harrisville, Roy A. & Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Knight, Douglas A. and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Harper & Row, 1986.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sherwood, Yvonne and Stephen D. Moore. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Fortress, 2011.
Sperling, S. David. Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America. Atlanta Scholars Press, 1992.
Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
External links[edit]
Bible Studies - Staying in the Word
Society of Biblical Literature
AcademicBible.com from the German Bible Society
Wabash Center's Internet Guid to Religion: Bible


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology




































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Biblical studies
Christian terminology


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Čeština
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 December 2014, at 01:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies