Editing Bruno Bauer (section)

== Argument against the existence of Jesus ==
Bauer became the first author to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist.<ref name="voorst711">[[Robert E. Van Voorst]] ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. {{ISBN|0-8028-4368-9}} pages 7–11</ref><ref name="BeilbyEddy2009">Beilby, James K. and Eddy, Paul Rhodes. [https://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA16 "The Quest for the Historical Jesus"], in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.). ''The Historical Jesus: Five Views''. Intervarsity, 2009, p. 16. See Strauss, David. [[iarchive:bub gb RmdLqnfw1OgC|<!-- quote=Strauss Jesus. --> "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined]], Calvin Blanchard, 1860.</ref>

Early in his academic career, however, Bauer was certain that Jesus certainly did exist - it was only that ordinary theologians continued to heap legend after legend onto the real, historical Jesus. In  Albert Schweitzer's ''[[The Quest of the Historical Jesus]]'' (1906), p. 143, Bauer is quoted as writing: "We save the honor of Jesus when we restore His Person to life from the state of inanition to which the apologists have reduced it, and give it once more a living relation to history, which it certainly possessed - that can no longer be denied."

Beginning in 1841, in his ''Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics'', Bauer argued that the [[Biblical Jesus]] was primarily a literary figure. However, he left open the question of whether a historical Jesus existed at all until his 1851 work, ''Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin'' and then in 1879 proposed his theory for the true origin of Jesus in ''Christ and the Caesars'', namely, that the Gospel writers freely used Greco-Roman classics in their mythical reconstructions of the life of the real man, Jesus of Galilee.

We should note, however, that in this opinion, Bauer remained close to the dialectical theology of [[GWF Hegel]]. Hegel hailed from the Rationalist School of Biblical critique, starting with [[Johann Gottfried Herder]] and Heinrich Paulus (who had been Hegel's employer during his early days). There was in fact a large movement of Bible Rationalism in the early 1800s. Hegel and Bauer were both part of that movement. Hasty writers call that atheism. Actually, the literature of Hegel and Bauer affirms that Jesus was real - but that typical theologians had interpreted Jesus all wrong.

Bauer's 1842 work, ''Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes'' (3 vol) debated whether the gospels were purely literary, with no historically authentic material. While not yet rejecting the historicity of Jesus, Bauer denied the historicity of a [[supernatural]] Christ (viz. Jesus - a natural human).<ref name="Schweitzer.Quest">{{cite book|last=Schweitzer |first=Albert |url=https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich |title=The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede |year=1910 |page=[https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich/page/158/mode/2up 159] |author-link=Albert Schweitzer}}</ref>

Bauer wrote, "Everything that the historical Christ is, everything that is said of Him, everything that is known of Him, belongs to the world of imagination, that is, of the imagination of the Christian community, and therefore has nothing to do with any man who belongs to the real world."<ref>{{cite book|last=Bauer |first=Bruno |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8Ac3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA308 |title=Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker |trans-title=Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics |publisher=O. Wigand |year=1842 |volume=3 |page=308 |language=de |quote={{lang|de|Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.}} |trans-quote=We have answered the question, with which our time has occupied itself so much, namely whether Jesus is the historical Christ, by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we say of him know, belongs to the world of ideas, and indeed to the Christian idea, and therefore also has nothing to do with a person who belongs to the real world. The answer to the question is that it has been deleted for all future use. |author-link=Bruno Bauer}}</ref> (see [[David Strauss]] (1808-1874) who pioneered the [[Quest for the historical Jesus|search for the "Historical Jesus"]] by also rejecting the supernatural events of "The Christ", in his 1835 work, ''Life of Jesus'').{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}

In his ''Criticism of the Pauline Epistles'' (1850-1852) and in ''A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin'' (1850-1851), Bauer argued that Jesus had not existed.<ref name="Schweitzer128">Schweitzer, Albert. ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus''. Fortress, 2001; first published 1913, pp. 124-128, 139-141.</ref> Schweitzer notes, "At the end of his study of the Gospels, Bauer is inclined to make the decision of the question whether there ever was a historic Jesus depend on the result of a further investigation which he proposed to make into the Pauline Epistles. It was not until ten years later (1850-1851) that he accomplished this task, ({{lang|de|Kritik der Paidinischen Briefe}}. (Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, 1850-1852.) and applied the result in his new edition of the "Criticism of the Gospel History." ({{lang|de|Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.}} [Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin] 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851) The result is negative: there never was any historical Jesus."<ref>{{cite book|last=Schweitzer |first=Albert |url=https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich |title=The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede|year=1910|page=[https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich/page/156/mode/2up 157] |author-link=Albert Schweitzer}}</ref>

In ''Christ and the Caesars'' (1879) he suggested that Christianity was a synthesis of the [[Stoicism]] of [[Seneca the Younger]] and of the Jewish theology of [[Philo]] as developed by pro-Roman Jews such as [[Josephus]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Moggach |first=Douglas |author-link=Douglas Moggach |title=The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer |location=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |date=2003 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mEQd5VP1lBIC&pg=PA184 184]}} *Also see Engels, Frederick. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/05/bauer.htm "Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity"], ''Der Sozialdemokrat'', May 1882.</ref> Bauer's work was heavily criticized at the time; in 1842 he was removed from his position at the University of Bonn. Still, Bauer's works were well-cited throughout Europe for the rest of the 19th century. In the 20th century, his work had little impact on future myth theorists.<ref name="voorst711" /><ref name="CBen204">{{cite book|title=In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images |first=Clinton |last=Bennett |author-link=Clinton Bennett |date=December 1, 2001 |isbn=0826449166 |publisher=Continuum |pages=204}}</ref>

[[Christ myth theory]] proponents still assert the threefold argument originally asserted by Bauer - ''allegedly'':
* that the [[New Testament]] has no historical value.
* that there are no non-Christian [[Sources for the historicity of Jesus|references to Jesus Christ]] dating back to the first century.
* that Christianity had [[syncretism|syncretistic]] or mythical roots.<ref name="Voorst2000">{{cite book|last=Voorst |first=Robert Van |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&pg=PA9 |title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8028-4368-5|page=9|quote=Bauer laid down the typical threefold argument that almost all subsequent deniers of the existence of Jesus were to follow (although not in direct dependence upon him). First, he denied the value of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Paul's letters, in establishing the existence of Jesus. Second, he argued that the lack of mention of Jesus in non-Christian writings of the first century shows that Jesus did not exist. Neither do the few mentions of Jesus by Roman writers in the early second century establish his existence. Third, he promoted the view that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical at its beginnings. |author-link=Robert E. Van Voorst}}</ref>

This one-sided interpretation by author Van Voorst is quite common, but others, like Trejo,{{sfn|Trejo|2002}} say that such an interpretation lacks the nuance that we find inside the pages of Bauer's actual works. They say that Bauer didn't deny the existence of Jesus of Galilee - but merely questioned the legends and Nature miracles told about him. Like [[GWF Hegel]] and the Rationalist School, Bauer would focus on the historical environment and the ''teachings'' of Jesus, rather than engage in sophomoric debates about the reality of Nature miracles.