Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Bruno Bauer" in English language version.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)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.[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.]
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.
The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present