Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Genocide definitions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genocide definitions include many scholarly and international legal definitions of genocide, a word coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. The word is a compound of the ancient Greek word γένος (génos, 'genus', or 'kind') and the Latin word caedō ("kill"). While there are various definitions of the term, almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).

This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide; there is also growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion. Writing in 1998, Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise; the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. This has been supported by later scholars. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that for various reasons, none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support. Rouben Paul Adalian writing in 2002 also highlights the difficulty there has been in trying to develop a common definition for genocide among specialists.

According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage. The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent, and social scientists often define genocide more broadly. The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean "large-scale violence against civilians" when used by governments and international organisations. Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses "genocide" is usually "as a stand-in term for the greatest evils". This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is "simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale".

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis); it is carried out deliberately, with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group. The genocides recognised under the 1948 legal definition that led to trials in international criminal tribunals are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre.

Themes in definitions of genocide

Raphael Lemkin's original definition of genocide was broader than that later adopted by the United Nations; he focused on genocide as the 'destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups', including actions that led to the 'disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups'. Scholarly definitions vary, but there are three common themes: 'the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale', atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and 'the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory'. The colloquial understanding of genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is conceived as innocent victims targeted for their ethnic identity rather than for any political reason. Genocide is often considered the apex of criminality, worse than other atrocities that lead to an equal amount of civilian death and destruction.

The tension between law and history serves to clarify the variations in the interpretation of genocide legal definitions and popular discussion. Law focuses on serious acts, defining genocide with specific criteria and limited group protections, while historians explore the complexity of genocides without legal restrictions. They consider long-term processes, various motives, and the evolution of group identities after attacks.

List of definitions

Date Author Definition
1944 Raphael Lemkin, Polish Jewish lawyer New conceptions require new terms. By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

(Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79)

1945 Count 3 of the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials They (the defendants) conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—viz., the extermination of racial and national groups—against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.
1945 Raphael Lemkin It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, genocide. The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

More often it [Genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

1946 Raphael Lemkin The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide. ("Genocide", American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946), p. 227–230)
1946 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) (11 December) Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, ...and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. ...

The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law...whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds...

1948 The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). Article 2: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)
1959 Pieter N. Drost, Dutch law professor Genocide is the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such. (The Crime of State, Volume 2, Leiden, 1959, p. 125.)
1960 Nehemiah Robinson, lawyer and director of the Institute of Jewish Affairs of the World Jewish Congress Genocide has been committed when acts of homicide are joined with a connecting purpose, i.e., directed against persons with specific characteristics (with intent to destroy the group or a segment thereof).
1975 Vahakn Dadrian, Armenian sociologist Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide. (A Typology of Genocide)
1976 Irving Louis Horowitz, sociologist [Genocide is] a structural and systematic destruction of innocent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus. ...Genocide represents a systematic effort over time to liquidate a national population, usually a minority...[and] functions as a fundamental political policy to assure conformity and participation of the citizenry. (Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder)
1981 Leo Kuper, genocide scholar I shall follow the definition of genocide given in the [UN] Convention. This is not to say that I agree with the definition. On the contrary, I believe a major omission to be in the exclusion of political groups from the list of groups protected. In the contemporary world, political differences are at the very least as significant a basis for massacre and annihilation as racial, national, ethnic or religious differences. Then too, the genocides against racial, national, ethnic or religious groups are generally a consequence of, or intimately related to, political conflict. However, I do not think it helpful to create new definitions of genocide, when there is an internationally recognized definition and a Genocide Convention which might become the basis for some effective action, however limited the underlying conception. But since it would vitiate the analysis to exclude political groups, I shall refer freely...to liquidating or exterminatory actions against them. (Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century)
1982 Jack Nusan Porter, Ukrainian American sociologist Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.
1984 Yehuda Bauer, Israeli historian and Holocaust scholar [Genocide is] the planned destruction, since the mid-nineteenth century, of a racial, national, or ethnic group as such, by the following means: (a) selective mass murder of elites or parts of the population; (b) elimination of national (racial, ethnic) culture and religious life with the intent of "denationalization"; (c) enslavement, with the same intent; (d) destruction of national (racial, ethnic) economic life, with the same intent; (e) biological decimation through the kidnapping of children, or the prevention of normal family life, with the same intent.... [Holocaust is] the planned physical annihilation, for ideological or pseudo-religious reasons, of all the members of a national, ethnic, or racial group.
1987 Tony Barta, historian My conception of a genocidal society—as distinct from a genocidal state—is one in which the bureaucratic apparatus might officially be directed to protect innocent people but in which a whole race is nevertheless subject to remorseless pressures of destruction inherent in the very nature of the society. ("Relations of Genocide: Land and Lives in the Colonization of Australia", pp. 239–240.) (see also Australian genocide debate)
1987 Isidor Wallimann [de] and Michael N. Dobkowski Genocide is the deliberate, organized destruction, in whole or in large part, of racial or ethnic groups by a government or its agents. It can involve not only mass murder, but also forced deportation (ethnic cleansing), systematic rape, and economic and biological subjugation. (Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Reissue of an early work.)
1988 Henry Huttenbach Genocide is any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy. ("Locating the Holocaust on the Genocide Spectrum: Towards a Methodology of Definition and Categorization", Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289–303.)
1988 Helen Fein, sociologist Genocide is a series of purposeful actions by a perpetrator(s) to destroy a collectivity through mass or selective murders of group members and suppressing the biological and social reproduction of the collectivity. This can be accomplished through the imposed proscription or restriction of reproduction of group members, increasing infant mortality, and breaking the linkage between reproduction and socialization of children in the family or group of origin. The perpetrator may represent the state of the victim, another state, or another collectivity. (Genocide: A Sociological Perspective, London)
1988 Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr, professors of political science the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. ("Toward Empirical Theory of Genocides and Politicides", International Studies Quarterly, 37:3, 1988)
1990 Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator. (The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, Yale University Press)
1990 John L. P. Thompson and Gail A. Quets In short, given the problems which arise from restrictions, we define genocide as the destruction of a group by purposive action. This allows the role of intentional action to be explored, different subtypes of genocide to be compared, and the impact of different factors on genocide to be examined empirically. (Genocide and Social Conflict: A Partial Theory and Comparison, p. 248)
1993 Helen Fein Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim. (Genocide: A Sociological Perspective, 1993/1990)
1994 Steven T. Katz, American philosopher and scholar [Genocide is] the actualization of the intent, however successfully carried out, to murder in its totality any national, ethnic, racial, religious, political, social, gender or economic group, as these groups are defined by the perpetrator, by whatever means. (The Holocaust in Historical Context, Vol. 1, 1994) [Modified by Adam Jones in 2000 to read, "murder in whole or in substantial part…, in 2010 to read, "murder in whole or in part… "]
1994 Israel W. Charny, psychologist and genocide scholar Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defenselessness of the victim. (Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions ed. George Andreopoulos)
1996 Irving Louis Horowitz, sociologist Genocide is herein defined as a structural and systematic destruction of innocent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus.... Genocide mean the physical dismemberment and liquidation of people on large scales, an attempt by those who rule to achieve the total elimination of a subject people.
2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
2002 Rouben Paul Adalian, historian and director of the Armenian National Institute [W]ithout constructing a dictionary definition, there are five elements that I find necessary to identify a specific atrocity as genocide: the commissioning party is the state, or any institution acting as the instrument of the state, proceeding in the avowed interest of the state; the objects of the policy, the victims, are civilians incapable of mounting an organized defense of their lives, families, and properties; the atrocity is on a scale such as to indicate a scheme by its architects for the wholesale extermination of a sizable segment of a population, if not an entire people, defined or self-defined as a distinct social community; that the objective is a permanent alteration of the demographic characteristics and composition of a defined geographic space; and that all of the above occur or are implemented over, historically-speaking, a short period of time.
2003 Barbara Harff, political scientist Genocides and politicides are the promotion, execution, and/or implied consent of sustained policies by governing elites or their agents—or, in the case of civil war either of the contending authorities—that are intended to destroy, in whole or part, a communal, political, or politicized ethnic group.
2005 Manus I. Midlarsky, political scientist Genocide is understood to be the state-sponsored systematic mass murder of innocent and helpless men, women, and children denoted by a particular ethno-religious identity, having the purpose of eradicating this group from a particular territory.
2005 Mark Levene, historian Genocide occurs when a state, perceiving the integrity of its agenda to be threatened by an aggregate population—defined by the state as an organic collectivity, or series of collectivities—seeks to remedy the situation by the systematic, en masse physical elimination of that aggregate, in toto, or until it is no longer perceived to represent a threat.
2005 Jacques Sémelin, historian and political scientist I will define genocide as that particular process of civilian destruction that is directed at the total eradication of a group, the criteria by which it is identified being determined by the perpetrator.
2006 Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley A genocidal mass murder is politically motivated violence that directly or indirectly kills a substantial proportion of a targeted population, combatants and noncombatants alike, regardless of their age or gender.
2007 Martin Shaw, sociologist Genocide is a form of violent social conflict or war, between armed power organizations that aim to destroy civilian social groups and those groups and other actors who resist this destruction. Genocidal action is action in which armed power organizations treat civilian social groups as enemies and aim to destroy their real or putative social power, by means of killing, violence and coercion against individuals whom they regard as members of the groups.
2007 Daniel Feierstein, social scientist Genocide should be defined in broad and general terms as the execution of a large-scale and systematic plan with the intention of destroying a human group as such in whole or in part. (English translation, 2014)
2009 Donald Bloxham, historian [Genocide is] the physical destruction of a large portion of a group in a limited or unlimited territory with the intention of destroying that group’s collective existence.
2011 Uğur Ümit Üngör, Dutch–Turkish historian, sociologist Genocide can be defined as a complex process of systematic persecution and annihilation of a group of people by a government... We can speak of genocide when individuals are persecuted and murdered merely on the basis of their presumed or imputed membership in a group rather than on their individual characteristics or participation in certain acts.
2013 Adrian Gallagher, professor of mass atrocity prevention Genocide is when a collective source of power (usually a State) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size.
2014 Christopher Powell and Julia Peristerakis We define genocide as the violent erasure of a collective identity and understand genocide as a multidimensional process that works through the destruction of the social institutions that maintain collective identity as well as through the physical destruction of human individuals.
2017 John Cox, historian Genocide is the concerted, coordinated effort to destroy any human group or collectivity as it is defined by the perpetrator.

Genocide differs from other mass crimes against humanity and atrocities by its ambition. Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group's ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.

Because perpetrators very rarely provide explicit statements of genocidal intent, this intent can be uncovered by examining policies, actions, and outcomes, as well as the guiding ideology.

2017 Maureen S. Hiebert, political scientist [T]he intentional, systematic physical, biological, and/or cultural destruction of the members of a group in which the group is defined by the perpetrator.
2024 Thomas Earl Porter, historian Genocide is the purposeful attempt to destroy any human group as defined by the genocidists. It is an effort to disrupt that group's social cohesion, thereby preventing its ability to maintain its cultural identity, and thus, its very existence as a group.

Criticisms of definitions

Since the adoption of the CPPCG there has been criticism of the definition adopted. Common criticisms across definitions includes the focus on physical destruction, the defining of target groups, and the proportion of a group that needs to be affected to cross the threshold to be considered "genocide".

Christian Gerlach, professor of Modern History at the University of Bern, opposes the concept of genocide. His history of the Holocaust, The Extermination of the European Jews, does not use the term, and in a 2023 interview with the World Socialist Web Site he called genocide "an analytically worthless concept made for political purposes" and "an instrument of liberal imperialism".

In literature, some scholars have popularly emphasized the role that the Soviet Union played in excluding political groups from the international definition of genocide, which is contained in the Genocide Convention of 1948, and in particular they have written that Joseph Stalin may have feared greater international scrutiny of the political killings that occurred in the country, such as the Great Purge; however, this claim is not supported by evidence. The Soviet view was shared and supported by many diverse countries, and they were also in line with Raphael Lemkin's original conception, and it was originally promoted by the World Jewish Congress. By 1951, Lemkin was saying that the Soviet Union was the only state that could be indicted for genocide; his concept of genocide, as it was outlined in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, covered Stalinist deportations as genocide by default, and differed from the adopted Genocide Convention in many ways. From a 21st-century perspective, its coverage was very broad, and as a result, it would classify any gross human rights violation as a genocide, and many events that were deemed genocidal by Lemkin did not amount to genocide. As the Cold War began, this change was the result of Lemkin's turn to anti-communism in an attempt to convince the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention.

Historian Anton Weiss-Wendt has highlighted how much countries' own interest in not being prosecuted under the CPPCG led to changes to the final CPPCG adopted by the UN.

Historicity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus historically existed (as opposed to being a purely mythological figure). The question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century. Today scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century AD, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed, but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'.

There is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Bible stories, and only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (commonly dated to 30 or 33 AD). The historicity of supernatural elements like his purported miracles and resurrection are deemed to be solely a matter of 'faith' or of 'theology', or lack thereof.

The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has been, and is still, considered an untenable fringe theory in academic scholarship for more than two centuries, but according to one source it has gained popular attention in recent decades due to the growth of the Internet.

Academic efforts in biblical studies to determine facts of Jesus's life are part of the "quest for the historical Jesus", and several criteria of authenticity are used in evaluating the authenticity of elements of the Gospel-story. The criterion of multiple attestation is used to argue that attestation by multiple independent sources confirms his existence. There are at least 14 independent sources from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus that survive. The letters of Paul are the earliest surviving sources referencing Jesus, and Paul documents personally knowing and interacting with eyewitnesses such as Jesus' brother James and some of Jesus' closest disciples around 36 AD, within a few years of the crucifixion (30 or 33 AD). Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and throughout his letters, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can be found. Besides the gospels, and the letters of Paul, non-biblical works that are considered sources for the historicity of Jesus include two mentions in Antiquities of the Jews (Testimonium Flavianum, Jesus' own brother James) by Jewish historian and Galilean military leader Josephus (dated circa 93–94 AD) and a mention in Annals by Roman historian Tacitus (circa 116 AD). From just Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus alone, the existence of Jesus along with the general time and place of his activity can be adduced. Additionally, multiple independent sources affirm that Jesus actually had siblings.

Modern scholarship

Mainstream view: a historical Jesus existed

Historical Jesus

Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, and scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea in the 1st century CE. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase. Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.

Only two accepted facts of a historical Jesus

Part of the 6th-century Madaba Map asserting two possible baptism locations
The crucifixion of Jesus as depicted by Mannerist painter Bronzino (c. 1545)

There is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Christian and non-Christian sources, and reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" are broadly debated for their reliability, but two events of this historical Jesus are subject to "almost universal assent," namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (who officiated 26–36 AD).

The Baptism of Jesus by Juan Fernández Navarrete (16th century)

Based on the criterion of embarrassment, scholars argue that the early Christian Church would not have invented the painful death of their leader. The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, although Jesus was viewed as without sin and this positioned John above Jesus.

Lightfoot Professor of Divinity James Dunn stated that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."

In his popular book Did Jesus Exist? (2012), American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explained:

Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large – disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was.

A distinction is made between 'the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith', and the historicity of the supernatural elements of the latter narrative, including his purported miracles or resurrection, are outside the reach of the historical methods.

Fringe view: there was no historical Jesus

The Christ myth theory, which developed within the scholarly research on the historical Jesus in the 19th century, is, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley's words, the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology" possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". Alternatively, Bart Ehrman (who himself rejects the Christ myth theory) summarises Earl Doherty's view as being "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition". David Gullotta states that modern-day interest in mythicism has been "amplified by internet conspiracy culture, pseudoscience, and media sensationalism". Casey and Ehrman note that many of the proponents of mythicism are either atheists or agnostics. Justin Meggitt partially attributed the recent cultural prominence of mythicism to the popularisation of a new wave of scholarship promoting the idea. Yet, mythicism has not gained traction among experts.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus's existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.

Virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted. In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory has been an untenable fringe theory for over two centuries. It finds virtually no support from scholars. Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.

George Albert Wells, one of the most influential mythicists for modern mythicism, eventually came to accept that Jesus did exist.

Sources for the historicity of Jesus

Judea Province during the 1st century

Methodological considerations

Multiple attestation

The criterion of multiple attestation looks at the number of early sources that mention Jesus and evaluates the reliability of those sources. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least twelve independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters, most of which represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity. Other independent sources did not survive.

There are Christian sources on the person of Jesus (the letters of Paul and the Gospels) and there are also Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) that mention Jesus, and there are also many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings from early Christianity.

These additional sources are independent sources on Jesus's existence, and corroborate details found in other surviving sources as a "bedrock of historical tradition". Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second century never deny the existence of Jesus, and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus. Taking into consideration that sources on other first century individuals from Galilee were also written by either supporters or enemies as well, the sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.

From just Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus alone, the existence of Jesus along with the general time and place of his activity can be confirmed.

Early dates of the Christian oral traditions and Paul

Biblical scholarship assumes that the gospel-stories are based on oral traditions and memories of Jesus. These traditions precede the surviving gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus and the time of Paul's persecution of the early Christian Jews, prior to his conversion.

According to British biblical scholar and Anglican priest Christopher M. Tuckett, most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus. He states that the historical value of traditions are not necessarily correlated with the later dates of composition of writings since even later sources can contain early tradition material. Theissen and Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic gospels, that such traditions show local familiarity of the region, and that such traditions were explicitly called "memory", indicating biographical elements that included historical references such as notable people from his era. According to Maurice Casey, some of the sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources which indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony.

Paul's letters (generally dated to circa 48–62 CE) are the earliest surviving sources on Jesus, and Paul adds autobiographical details such as that he personally knew and interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his most intimate disciples (Peter and John) and family members (his brother James) starting around 36 CE, within a few years of the crucifixion (30 or 33 CE). Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and throughout his letters, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus on earth can be found.

Reliability of sources

Since the third quest for the historical Jesus, the four gospels and noncanonical texts have been viewed as more useful sources to reconstruct the life of Jesus compared to the previous quests.

On the quality of available sources, German historian of religion Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the Gospels are unsatisfactory as they were not written as detailed historical biographies, that the non-Christian sources provide no new information, and that the sources hopelessly intertwine history and legend, but present the views and beliefs of the early disciples and the Christian community.

However, evangelical New Testament scholars like Craig Blomberg argue that the source material on Jesus does correlate significantly with historical data.

Christian origins scholar Craig A. Evans argued that there are also archeological finds that corroborate aspects of the time of Jesus mentioned in the surviving sources, such as context from Nazareth, the Caiaphas ossuary, numerous synagogue buildings, and Jehohanan, a crucified victim who had a Jewish burial after execution. Written sources and archeologist Ken Dark's excavations on Nazareth correlate with Jesus' existence, Joseph and Jesus' occupation as craftworkers, presence of literacy, existence of synagogues, Gospel accounts relating to Nazareth, and other Roman period sources on Nazareth.

Other historical persons in first century CE sources

Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status. Ehrman argues that the historical record for the first century was so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive. Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt.

With at least 14 sources by believers and nonbelievers within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable people from 1st century Galilee. Non-Christian sources do exist and they corroborate some details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources. Classicist-numismatist Michael Grant argued that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied any more than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.

New Testament sources

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine were written in a span of a decade starting in the late 40s (i.e., approximately 20 to 30 years after the generally accepted time period of Jesus's death) and are the earliest surviving texts that include any information about Jesus. However, Paul started interacting with eyewitnesses of Jesus in the mid-30s AD, within a few years of the crucifixion, since he wrote about meeting and knowing James, the brother of Jesus and Jesus's intimate disciples Peter and John. From Paul's writings alone, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can be found: his descent from Abraham and David, his upbringing in the Jewish Law, gathering together disciples (including Cephas (Peter) and John), having a brother named James, living an exemplary life, the Last Supper and the betrayal, numerous details surrounding his death and resurrection (e.g. crucifixion, Jewish involvement in putting him to death, burial, resurrection; seen by Peter, James, the twelve and others) along with numerous quotations referring to notable teachings and events found in the Gospels. Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus compared to the Gospels, he was a contemporary of Jesus and does provide numerous substantial biographical elements and he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person who was "born of a woman" and a Jew. Additionally, there are independent sources (Mark, John, Paul, Josephus) affirming that Jesus actually had brothers. The particular term used by Paul to refer to Jesus being 'born of a woman' also relates to human births in other ancient literature such as Plato’s Republic and Josephus’ Antiquities.

Craig A. Evans and Ehrman argue that Paul's letters are among the earliest sources that provide a direct link to people who lived with and knew Jesus since Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus's original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus. Paul's first meeting with Peter and James was around 36 AD. Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion and his conversion occurred two years after this event. Paul mentioned details in his letters such as that Jesus was a Jew, born of the line of David, and had biological brothers. According to Simon Gathercole, Paul's description of Jesus's life on Earth, his personality, and family tend to establish that Paul regarded Jesus as a natural person, rather than an allegorical figure.

Synoptic Gospels

An 11th-century Byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the Gospel of Luke

The synoptic gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Scholars argue that the surviving gospels show usage of earlier independent written and oral sources that extended back to the time of Jesus's death, but did not survive. Aramaic sources have been detected in Mark's Gospel, which could indicate use of early or even eyewitness testimony when it was being written. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.

Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography.

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate's governorship. Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and that a group of "Christians" still existed; analogous to common knowledge of founders and their followers like Plato and Platonists. Josephus was personally involved in Galilee when he was the commander of Jewish forces during the revolt against Roman occupation and trained 65,000 fighters in the region.

Jesus is referenced by Josephus twice, once in Book 18 and once in Book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94. On the first reference, the general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, in Book 18 most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery. On the second reference, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44, describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Mishnah

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus as it reflects the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.

Monday, March 24, 2025

Levodopa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CAS Number
PubChem CID
IUPHAR/BPS
DrugBank
ChemSpider
UNII
KEGG
ChEBI
ChEMBL
CompTox Dashboard (EPA)
ECHA InfoCard100.000.405 Edit this at Wikidata
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC9H11NO4
Molar mass197.190 g·mol−1
3D model (JSmol)

Levodopa, also known as L-DOPA and sold under many brand names, is a dopaminergic medication which is used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and certain other conditions like dopamine-responsive dystonia and restless legs syndrome. The drug is usually used and formulated in combination with a peripherally selective aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AAAD) inhibitor like carbidopa or benserazide. Levodopa is taken by mouth, by inhalation, through an intestinal tube, or by administration into fat (as foslevodopa).

Side effects of levodopa include nausea, the wearing-off phenomenon, dopamine dysregulation syndrome, and levodopa-induced dyskinesia, among others. The drug is a centrally permeable monoamine precursor and prodrug of dopamine and hence acts as a dopamine receptor agonist. Chemically, levodopa is an amino acid, a phenethylamine, and a catecholamine.

Levodopa was first synthesized and isolated in the early 1910s. The antiparkinsonian effects of levodopa were discovered in the 1950s and 1960s. Following this, it was introduced for the treatment of Parkinson's disease in 1970.

Medical uses

Levodopa crosses the protective blood–brain barrier, whereas dopamine itself cannot. Thus, levodopa is used to increase dopamine concentrations in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, dopamine-responsive dystonia and Parkinson-plus syndrome. The therapeutic efficacy is different for different kinds of symptoms. Bradykinesia and rigidity are the most responsive symptoms while tremors are less responsive to levodopa therapy. Speech, swallowing disorders, postural instability, and freezing gait are the least responsive symptoms.

Once levodopa has entered the central nervous system, it is converted into dopamine by the enzyme aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase (AAAD), also known as DOPA decarboxylase (DDC). Pyridoxal phosphate (vitamin B6) is a required cofactor in this reaction, and may occasionally be administered along with levodopa, usually in the form of pyridoxine. Because levodopa bypasses the enzyme tyrosine hydroxylase, the rate-limiting step in dopamine synthesis, it is much more readily converted to dopamine than tyrosine, which is normally the natural precursor for dopamine production.

In humans, conversion of levodopa to dopamine does not only occur within the central nervous system. Cells in the peripheral nervous system perform the same task. Thus administering levodopa alone will lead to increased dopamine signaling in the periphery as well. Excessive peripheral dopamine signaling is undesirable as it causes many of the adverse side effects seen with sole levodopa administration. To bypass these effects, it is standard clinical practice to coadminister (with levodopa) a peripheral DOPA decarboxylase inhibitor (DDCI) such as carbidopa (medicines containing carbidopa, either alone or in combination with levodopa, are branded as Lodosyn (Aton Pharma) Sinemet (Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited), Pharmacopa (Jazz Pharmaceuticals), Atamet (UCB), Syndopa and Stalevo (Orion Corporation) or with a benserazide (combination medicines are branded Madopar or Prolopa), to prevent the peripheral synthesis of dopamine from levodopa). However, when consumed as a botanical extract, for example from M pruriens supplements, a peripheral DOPA decarboxylase inhibitor is not present.

Inbrija (previously known as CVT-301) is an inhaled powder formulation of levodopa indicated for the intermittent treatment of "off episodes" in patients with Parkinson's disease currently taking carbidopa/levodopa. It was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration on 21 December 2018, and is marketed by Acorda Therapeutics.

Coadministration of pyridoxine without a DDCI accelerates the peripheral decarboxylation of levodopa to such an extent that it negates the effects of levodopa administration, a phenomenon that historically caused great confusion.

In addition, levodopa, co-administered with a peripheral DDCI, is efficacious for the short-term treatment of restless leg syndrome.

The two types of response seen with administration of levodopa are:

  • The short-duration response is related to the half-life of the drug.
  • The longer-duration response depends on the accumulation of effects over at least two weeks, during which ΔFosB accumulates in nigrostriatal neurons. In the treatment of Parkinson's disease, this response is evident only in early therapy, as the inability of the brain to store dopamine is not yet a concern.

Available forms

Levodopa is available, alone and/or in combination with carbidopa, in the form of immediate-release oral tablets and capsules, extended-release oral tablets and capsules, orally disintegrating tablets, as a powder for inhalation, and as an enteral suspension or gel (via intestinal tube). In terms of combination formulations, it is available with carbidopa (as levodopa/carbidopa), with benserazide (as levodopa/benserazide), and with both carbidopa and entacapone (as levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone). In addition to levodopa itself, certain prodrugs of levodopa are available, including melevodopa (melevodopa/carbidopa) (used orally) and foslevodopa (foslevodopa/foscarbidopa) (used subcutaneously).

Side effects

The side effects of levodopa may include:

Although many adverse effects are associated with levodopa, in particular psychiatric ones, it has fewer than other antiparkinsonian agents, such as anticholinergics and dopamine receptor agonists.

More serious are the effects of chronic levodopa administration in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, which include:

Rapidly decreasing the dose of levodopa can result in neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

Clinicians try to avoid these side effects and adverse reactions by limiting levodopa doses as much as possible until absolutely necessary.

Metabolites of dopamine, such as DOPAL, are known to be dopaminergic neurotoxins. The long term use of levodopa increases oxidative stress through monoamine oxidase led enzymatic degradation of synthesized dopamine causing neuronal damage and cytotoxicity. The oxidative stress is caused by the formation of reactive oxygen species (H2O2) during the monoamine oxidase led metabolism of dopamine. It is further perpetuated by the richness of Fe2+ ions in striatum via the Fenton reaction and intracellular autooxidation. The increased oxidation can potentially cause mutations in DNA due to the formation of 8-oxoguanine, which is capable of pairing with adenosine during mitosis. See also the catecholaldehyde hypothesis.

Pharmacology

Pharmacodynamics

Levodopa is a dopamine precursor and prodrug of dopamine and hence acts as a non-selective dopamine receptor agonist, including of the D1-like receptors (D1, D5) and the D2-like receptors (D2, D3, D4).

Pharmacokinetics

The bioavailability of levodopa is 30%. It is metabolized into dopamine by aromatic-l-amino-acid decarboxylase (AAAD) in the central nervous system and periphery. The elimination half-life of levodopa is 0.75 to 1.5 hours. It is excreted 70–80% in urine.

Chemistry

Levodopa is an amino acid and a substituted phenethylamine and catecholamine.

Analogues and prodrugs of levodopa include melevodopa, etilevodopa, foslevodopa, and XP-21279. Some of these, like melevodopa and foslevodopa, are approved for the treatment of Parkinson's disease similarly to levodopa.

Other analogues include methyldopa, an antihypertensive agent, and droxidopa (L-DOPS), a norepinephrine precursor and prodrug.

6-Hydroxydopa, a prodrug of 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA), is a potent dopaminergic neurotoxin used in scientific research.

History

Levodopa was first synthesized in 1911 by Torquato Torquati from the Vicia faba bean. It was first isolated in 1913 by Marcus Guggenheim from the V. faba bean. Guggenheim tried levodopa at a dose of 2.5 mg and thought that it was inactive aside from nausea and vomiting.

In work that earned him a Nobel Prize in 2000, Swedish scientist Arvid Carlsson first showed in the 1950s that administering levodopa to animals with drug-induced (reserpine) Parkinsonian symptoms caused a reduction in the intensity of the animals' symptoms. In 1960 or 1961 Oleh Hornykiewicz, after discovering greatly reduced levels of dopamine in autopsied brains of patients with Parkinson's disease, published together with the neurologist Walther Birkmayer dramatic therapeutic antiparkinson effects of intravenously administered levodopa in patients. This treatment was later extended to manganese poisoning and later Parkinsonism by George Cotzias and his coworkers, who used greatly increased oral doses, for which they won the 1969 Lasker Prize. The first study reporting improvements in patients with Parkinson's disease resulting from treatment with levodopa was published in 1968.

Levodopa was first marketed in 1970 by Roche under the brand name Larodopa.

The neurologist Oliver Sacks describes this treatment in human patients with encephalitis lethargica in his 1973 book Awakenings, upon which the 1990 movie of the same name is based.

Carbidopa was added to levodopa in 1974 and this improved its tolerability.

Society and culture

Names

Levodopa is the generic name of the drug and its INNTooltip International Nonproprietary Name, USANTooltip United States Adopted Name, USPTooltip United States Pharmacopeia, BANTooltip British Approved Name, DCFTooltip Dénomination Commune Française, DCITTooltip Denominazione Comune Italiana, and JANTooltip Japanese Accepted Name.

Research

Novel formulations and prodrugs

New levodopa formulations for use by other routes of administration, such as subcutaneous administration, are being developed.

Levodopa prodrugs, with the potential for better pharmacokinetics, reduced fluctuations in levodopa levels, and reduced "on–off" phenomenon, are being researched and developed.

Depression

Levodopa has been reported to be inconsistently effective as an antidepressant in the treatment of depressive disorders. However, it was found to enhance psychomotor activation in people with depression.

Motivational disorders

Levodopa has been found to increase the willingness to exert effort for rewards in humans and hence appears to show pro-motivational effects. Other dopaminergic agents have also shown pro-motivational effects and may be useful in the treatment of motivational disorders.

In 2015, a retrospective analysis comparing the incidence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) between patients taking versus not taking levodopa found that the drug delayed onset of AMD by around 8 years. The authors state that significant effects were obtained for both dry and wet AMD.

Relative permittivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity   ...