Metropolitan of Volokolamsk Hilarion (Alfeev G.)

To the Question of Demythologizing of the New Testament Science

Alfeev Grigorii (2016) "To the Question of Demythologizing of the New Testament Science ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2016, vol. 64, pp. 9-19 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201664.9-19


Over the centuries no historical figure attracted so much attention, none has caused so much heated debate and conflicting opinions about Himself as a person of Jesus Christ. Debates began in His lifetime, and they are clearly refl ected in the pages of the Gospels and other New Testament Books. At present the scientific community is the urgent task of demythologizing the New Testament science, because the New Testament science developed under the influence of myths, created by scientists for over two hundred years. One or the other myth first arose in the mind of the researcher or research team, then other scientists picked it up, began analyzing, supplement, develop, challenge. As a result, a myth became the subject of scientific research, not the Gospel text, which was used only as an aid to prove the correctness of the creators of the myth. From the successful solution of this problem depends largely the future direction of New Testament studies. The author refers to some of the main myths of the New Testament science, the release of which will open the prospects for further development of biblical studies.


Jesus Christ, New Testament, Gospel, Gospeller, Christianity, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Apostles, Myths, Dogmata, Jews, Community, Bible Studies.


1. Metzger B. Novyj Zavet. Kontekst, formirovanie, soderzhanie (New Testament. Context, Formation, Content), Moscow, 2013.
2. Bauckham R. 1998 “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?”, in Bauckham R. (ed.) The Gospels for All Christians. Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Grand Rapids, 1998. P. 9–48.
3. Blackburn B. Theios Anēr and the Marcan Miracle Tradition, Tübingen, 1991.
4. Bultmann R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford, 1963.
5. Carruth S., Garsky A. Documenta Q. Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated. Q 11: 2b-4, Leuven, 1996.
6. Carter W. Matthew. Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, Peabody (Massachusetts), 2004.
7. Childs H. The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness, Atlanta (Georgia), 1988.
8. Conzelmann H. The Theology of St Luke, New York, 1961.
9. Deutsch C. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke, Sheffield, 1987.
10. Dibelius M. From Tradition to Gospel, New York, 1935.
11. Edwards J. R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Grand Rapids, 2009.
12. Ehrman B. D. How Jesus Became God. The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, New York, 2014.
13. Farrer A. M. A Study in St. Mark, Westminster, 1951.
14. Farrer A. M. 1955 “On Dispensing with Q”, in Nineham D. E. (ed.) Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, Oxford, 1955, pp. 55–88.
15. Farrer A. M. St. Matthew and St. Mark. Westminster, 1954.
16. Goulder M. D. Luke: A New Paradigm, Sheffield, 1989, vol. 1–2.
17. Hahn F. The Titles of Jesus in Christology, London, 1969.
18. Keener C. H. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, Grand Rapids, 2009
19. Kloppenborg J. S. Q, the Earliest Gospel. An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings by Jesus, Louisville, 2008.
20. Leisegang H. 1950 “Der Gottmensch als Archetypus“, in Eranos Jahrbuch, 1950, vol. 18, pp. 9–45.
21. Linnemann E. Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific is “Scientific Theology”?, Grand Rapids, 1998.
22. Luz U. Studies in Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2005.
23. Mack B. L. The Lost Gospel. The Book of Q and Christian Origins, New York, 1993.
24. Manson W. Jesus the Messiah, London, 1943.
25. Meier J. P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, New York, 1994, vol. 2.
26. Meier J. P. Matthew, Collegeville (Minnesota), 1990.
27. Meier J. P. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel, Eugene (Oregon), 2004.
28. Nolland J. The Gospel of Matthew. A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids, 2005.
29. Petersen D. N. The Origins of Mark. The Markan Community in Current Debate, Leiden, 2000.
30. Reicke B. Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem, Leiden, 1972.
31. Richardson A. The Miracle Stories in the Gospels, London, 1941.
32. Stanton G. N. A Gospel for a New People. Studies in Matthew, Edinburgh, 1992.
33. Stendahl K. The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Uppsala, 1954.
34. Taylor V. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, London, 1935.
35. Thompson M. 1998 “The Holy Internet”, in Bauckham R. (ed.) The Gospels for All Christians. Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Grand Rapids, 1998, pp. 49–70.
36. Thompson W. G. Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Community. Mt. 17:22–18:35, Rome, 1970.
37. Tuckett Ch. M. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Studies on Q, London; New York, 1996.
38. Turner D. L. Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2008.
39. Viviano B. T. What Are They Saying about Q?, New York, 2013.
40. Weinreich O. 1926 “Antikes Gottmenschentum“, in Neues Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 1926, vol. 2, pp. 633–651.

Information about the author

Metropolitan of Volokolamsk Hilarion (Alfeev G.)