![]() ![]() Schleiermacher and Heinrich Paulus attacked various vision theories. Īn incredible subplot is that many of the liberal scholars provided refutations of competing hypotheses. Otto Pfleiderer and others thought that legends could explain much of the data. David Strauss popularized the hallucination theory, and others like Ernest Renan followed him. Friedrich Schleiermacher favored the swoon theory, taking the view that Jesus never died on the cross. For example, an early attempt by Hermann Reimarus charged that Jesus' disciples stole his dead body. In his classic volume documenting studies of the historical Jesus during this time, Albert Schweitzer chronicles many of these approaches. Publications from the end of the Eighteenth through the Nineteenth Centuries provide the most numerous examples of naturalistic theories regarding Jesus' resurrection. A Review: Naturalistic Approaches since the Nineteenth Century Lastly, we will present a multifaceted critique of these positions, using only those data that can be ascertained by critical means, hence being accepted by the vast majority of scholars. Then, based on my recent survey of more than five hundred publications on the subject of Jesus' resurrection published between 1975 and the present, we will document the increased popularity of this hypothesis in the present, chiefly from scholars during the last decade or two. It was similarly the case that, about 100 years ago, the hallucination hypothesis was also the most popular critical position until it passed out of scholarly favor. Our approach here will begin by providing some historical perspective to this issue, making some brief comments regarding the heyday of naturalistic theories in Nineteenth Century theology. It would seem that critics, knowing that the resurrection lies at the heart of Christianity, have singled it out for special challenges. Several of these alternative approaches even appear in the Gospels themselves. Naturalistic tactics for explaining Jesus' resurrection have presumably existed as long as this event has been proclaimed. We will argue that these alternative strategies fail to explain the historicity of Jesus' resurrection appearances for a host of reasons, even when judged by critically-accepted standards. ![]() Then we will offer numerous critiques, both of such subjective approaches as a whole, as well as a couple of inclusive issues. We will survey several of these recent formulations. Similar to the situation at the end of the Nineteenth Century, hallucination and related subjective approaches are again the most popular among critics. Hallucination Theories to Explain Jesus' Resurrection?Īfter almost a century of virtual dormancy, a number of naturalistic alternative hypotheses regarding Jesus' resurrection have appeared in recent publications. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |