{"title":"耶稣神话说","authors":"M. Litwa","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvmd867c.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes and critiques the comparative method of three scholars who advocated the (virtual) nonexistence of Jesus: Bruno Bauer, Thomas L. Brodie, and Richard Carrier. It exposes an assumption of antiquity that has been carried over and accentuated in modern times: that the historical connotes the “real” or “true”; thus to be historical is to be true. If something is thereby not historical, but a combination of mythic motifs, it is not real.","PeriodicalId":115187,"journal":{"name":"How the Gospels Became History","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jesus Myth Theory\",\"authors\":\"M. Litwa\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvmd867c.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter analyzes and critiques the comparative method of three scholars who advocated the (virtual) nonexistence of Jesus: Bruno Bauer, Thomas L. Brodie, and Richard Carrier. It exposes an assumption of antiquity that has been carried over and accentuated in modern times: that the historical connotes the “real” or “true”; thus to be historical is to be true. If something is thereby not historical, but a combination of mythic motifs, it is not real.\",\"PeriodicalId\":115187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"How the Gospels Became History\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"How the Gospels Became History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvmd867c.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"How the Gospels Became History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvmd867c.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter analyzes and critiques the comparative method of three scholars who advocated the (virtual) nonexistence of Jesus: Bruno Bauer, Thomas L. Brodie, and Richard Carrier. It exposes an assumption of antiquity that has been carried over and accentuated in modern times: that the historical connotes the “real” or “true”; thus to be historical is to be true. If something is thereby not historical, but a combination of mythic motifs, it is not real.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
