Last modified on December 22, 2025, at 06:19

Historicity of Jesus

The historicity of Jesus focuses on whether Jesus Christ existed as a real historical person, or whether he is simply a result of mythological imagination. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming, as is agreed upon by virtually every expert in every academic institution in every relevant historical field in the world.[1] This consensus is acknowledged by non-Christian scholars, for example, atheist and agnostic scholars,[1] Jewish scholars,[2] and Christ myth proponents as well.[3] The non-existence of Jesus views have been considered fringe for more than 200 years and are considered refuted among ancient historians.[4][5][6]

The existence of Jesus is well supported with more than 14 independent sources, many of which are from the first century AD and from both supporters and opponents of Christianity.[7] Some secular scholars estimate that there could be even more sources, perhaps 25 independent authors who wrote perhaps 30 independent sources if we look for internal evidence as well.[8] From these sources scholars have reached some points of agreement as to details on the life of Jesus.[9]

The earliest sources on Jesus that have survived are the letters from the apostle Paul who was a contemporary of Jesus[10] and specified that he had very close relationships with very intimate eyewitnesses of Jesus such as James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church along with the closest disciples of Jesus in his ministry such as Peter (Cephas) and the apostle John going back to at least 35 or 36 AD.[11] The crucifixion occurred around the early 30s AD, so he knew such eyewitnesses very close to the time Jesus was crucified.[12] Paul was a persecutor of Christians before all of this, so his testimony of Jesus carries empirical force. Paul also displayed a good amount of knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus, giving numerous pieces of information that predate the Gospels and end up matching the Gospels later on (see Table 1 below).[13]

The Gospels are another set of independent sources that confirm the existence of Jesus and provide the most biographical information. The consensus in scholarship is that the Gospels are a type of ancient biography similar to Xenophon’s biographical works on Socrates, which early Christians like Justin Martyr acknowledged.[14] Internal evidence indicates that earlier independent sources than the gospels existed prior to the four Gospels being written.[8]

Other independent New Testament texts, like Hebrews (50s or 60s AD), acknowledge that Jesus existed. The book of Acts, written by Luke, discusses the final part of the life of Jesus, including interactions with his disciples and others, along with statements like the house of Israel put Jesus to be crucified (Acts 2:36).

There are also numerous non-biblical sources within reasonable time frames on Jesus as well. Josephus was a Jewish general of Galilee, the region where Jesus had his ministry, in the 60s AD and worked directly under Anannus II who had James, the brother of Jesus, executed.[15] The father of Annaus II, namely Annanus I, was at the trial of Jesus, giving a strong set of sources for Josephus’ information on Jesus, his brother James, and other events in Galilee.[15] Furthermore, Josephus even lived near Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus, for a time and trained tens of thousands of soldiers in Galilee during the Jewish revolt against the Romans.[15] Jesus is mentioned two times (Testimonium Flavianum and the James Brother of Jesus passage) and the consensus among experts is that that Josephus did write about Jesus.[16][17][18] Other non-biblical sources include Roman sources such as Tacitus, Suetonius, etc; the early church fathers, other writings from early Christians and some other Jewish sources.

Christ myth theories have been around for more than a century and are widely considered as fringe or conspiracy theories by experts since they failed to convince experts over a century ago and continue to fail to convince experts even today.[19] Secular and non-Christian scholars generally agree that mythicist theories are fringe and widely rejected by actual experts in history, the ancient world, and other relevant fields.[1] Even prominent mythicists like secularist G.A. Wells, who promoted mythicism in the late 20th century and into the 21st century, eventually rejected mythicism and came to believe that Jesus did exist.[20] Critics of mythicism such as atheist scholars acknowledge that mythicism is supported and driven mainly by atheists and atheist ideology, not historical research, and that their views contradict the views of experts from all religious and non-religious backgrounds.[21][22][23]

The Soviet Union practiced state atheism and was well-known for its propaganda. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus Christ was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). The Christian Courier indicates: "In our own time, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952), in a two-line entry under “Jesus,” states: “the name of the mythological founder of Christianity.” One scholar notes that this reveals more about the authors’ bias than their historical judgment (Metzger, 1965, 78)."[24]

See also: Atheists and historical illiteracy and Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version).

Sources

Overview

The conversion of the Apostle Paul.

The sources for the historical existence of Jesus are many. The earliest is a collection of letters by Saint Paul, who wrote from the late 40s to the mid-60s (when he was martyred). In these letters, Paul clearly states that he personally knew eyewitnesses of Jesus like James the brother of Jesus and very close disciples like Peter and John going back to 35 or 36 AD, within very few years after the crucifixion and resurrection around 30 or 33 AD.[11] These letters include early creedal professions and hymns whose origins have been traced to within a few years of Jesus’ death and coming from the Jerusalem community. There are also four biographies – the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – written either by eyewitnesses, or by authors who had access to eyewitnesses. Some scholars have speculated that earlier sources (such as a Passion narrative) were written within a few years of Jesus’ death by members of the Jerusalem Church and were later incorporated in the gospels. There are also other letters written by the apostles or disciples, including Saint Peter himself. A history of the early Church, the Acts of the Apostles contains information on Jesus’ earthly life, including internal source material such as the preserved preaching of Peter. Important testimony is also found in late first and early second century writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Jesus’ earthly life was even mentioned by some pseudo-Christian and non-Christian writings, including the Romano-Jewish historian Josephus Flavius – all to be discussed below.

Obviously, the bulk of the information comes from Christian sources. This is to be expected. The common temptation to radically fissure the sources into Christian / non-Christian categories (with the former then being dismissed) is a practice foreign to historical methods. Historians certainly identify an author's context, motivations, aims, and the like, but to dismiss a source (or whole group of sources) merely because the author(s) was personally invested in his subject is unjustified. For example, the only detailed source for the Roman general Agricola's conquest of Britain was written by Tacitus, his son-in-law, who was obviously personally interested in the career of his subject, and the glorification of Rome in general. But Tacitus's invaluable work has formed the basis for historical reconstructions of the conquest, proving to be a wealth of information – and these reconstructions depend principally on just this one written source. As summarized by Craig L. Blomberg, “…if we can reconstruct reasonably accurate history from all kinds of other ancient sources, we ought to be able to do that from the gospels, even though they too are ideological.”[25] Such an argument naturally extends to other Christian sources as well. That said, the evidence from non-Christian sources, even taken alone, is more than enough to establish the minimal claim of Jesus’ existence and influence.

Pauline Epistles

The collection of letters written by Saint Paul discusses Jesus and are the earliest sources on him. Paul was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus until after the resurrection, however, he was a contemporary of the life of Jesus intimately knew Jesus’ own family members such as James the brother of Jesus (leader of the Jerusalem church) and his closest disciples such as Saint Peter and John beginning around 35 or 36 AD, near the time of the crucifixion around 30 or 33 AD.[11] Paul's letters are pastoral writings meant to address the needs of particular Christian communities, and as such they are not aimed at providing biographical narratives of Jesus’ life. Nonetheless, they do mention Jesus, especially his death and resurrection, but also the Last Supper, and they quote Jesus or reference his teachings. At times Paul qualified his own teachings by stating, “I say, not the Lord”, indicating that he knew Jesus’ teachings.

Paul's direct knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus

Some mythicists have proposed that Paul refers to Jesus as a celestial, rather than earthly being, which is another concept that is universally rejected by modern historians. Nevertheless, such a hypothesis can be discarded, because all of the information given to us from Paul about Jesus during His earthly ministry refers to specific, earthly events that are unknown in ancient Judaic literature to have any precedence in celestial or supernatural regions.

For example, Paul as a contemporary of Jesus shows awareness of numerous things about the teachings and life of Jesus in his letters and provides a biographical outline of Jesus that parallels content in the Gospels:[13]

Table 1. Examples of Paul's knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus Gospel, if more specific Pauline Letter
Jesus descended from Abraham and David "according to the flesh" General Knowledge Galatians 3:14-16 and Romans 1:3
Jesus was born of a women on Earth under the Jewish law General Knowledge Galatians 4:4-5
Gathered disciples: including Cephas (Peter) and John; and having a brother named James General Knowledge Galatians 1:18-19, 2:9-12
Observes that other apostles, the physical siblings of Jesus, and Cephas (peter) all have wives General Knowledge 1 Corinthians 9:5
Had an impeccable character, lived and exemplary life, was poor, became a servant to the circumcised (Jews) General Knowledge Philippians 2:6-8; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Romans 15:3,8
Paul describes God as "Abba" just like Jesus described God as "Abba" Mark 14:36 Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:15
Allusions to the Sermon on the Mount and the principles of loving enemies Matthew 5:38-39; Luke 6:27-28, 33-35 Romans 12:14, 17-19
Jesus' teaching on paying taxes Mark 12:14-17 Romans 13:7
Jesus' abolition of the kosher laws Mark 7:19 Romans 14:20
Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce Matthew 19:1-12 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
A worker deserving their wages Luke 10:7 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Timothy 5:18
Preaching the gospel free of charge Matthew 10:8 1 Corinthians 9:18
On faith moving mountains Mark 11:23 1 Corinthians 13:2
Letting one's yes be yes and one's no be no Matthew 5:37 2 Corinthians 1:17
Invective against the Jewish leaders Matthew 23:29-38 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
Word of the Lord concerning his return and contains several echoes of the Olivet Discourse Mark 13 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Details on the Last Supper including teaching of bread and wine Luke 22:19-20 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Last Supper Luke 22:22,47-48 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Jesus testifies to Pontius Pilate General Knowledge 1 Timothy 6:13-14
Jewish people involved in his death General Knowledge 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
Jesus was killed by crucifixion General Knowledge 1 Corinthians 1:23
Jesus was crucified by earthly rulers General Knowledge 1 Corinthians 2:8
He was buried, resurrected and seen by Peter, the twelve and 500 others General Knowledge 1 Corinthians 15:4-8

Paul also quotes Messianic prophecies he believes apply to Jesus (e.g. Romans 10:16-Isaiah 53:1, Romans 15:21-Isaiah 52:15), and the Jewish belief in the Messiah was in a specifically earthly being, not celestial by any concept or exaggeration. All of these, and many other aspects that Paul applies to Jesus are only known in context of earthly humans and events, and therefore applying some sort of celestial belief to the Pauline epistles is entirely unwarranted and without any validation.

Other NT independent witnesses

Hebrews

The book of Hebrews is considered independent of Paul. As such it provides another witness to the life of Jesus:

Table 2. Details on the Life of Jesus Hebrews
Came into the world (born) Hebrews 1:6
Was made of flesh and blood Hebrews 2:14
He was human Hebrews 2:17
Jesus prayed Hebrews 5:7
Endured crucifixion Hebrews 12:2

Holy Gospels

The four biographies of the life of Jesus written during the first century A.D. are known as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These works contain the most detailed information about the life of Jesus. Perhaps the best-known material would be Jesus’ birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. The gospels contain all sorts of other information, naming Jesus’ close companions, identifying locations where his teachings were given or miracles were performed, describing Jewish customs in detail, referencing the topography of Jerusalem, etc.

While it is impossible to examine the gospels in detail here, it will suffice to show that they clearly presented themselves as historical documents, describing historical events in a falsifiable way and within a specific historical setting known to their audience. The three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written before A. D. 70, with a much earlier date possible concerning Matthew. Their textual relations with one another, and their authorship, are complex topics, but a general summary based on the witnesses of history will prove useful. As the Church Fathers recorded, the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle, who was an eyewitness to the events he described. Mark was a follower of Peter the Apostle, and he also had access to other sources, including Matthew's Gospel, and probably Luke's. Luke was a follower of Paul, who would have had access to disciples of Jesus, and even his relatives, through connections with Antioch and ultimately Jerusalem. John's Gospel was written last, around A. D. 90, by a disciple of the Lord and eyewitness to the events, referred to as the ‘beloved disciple’ in the text. Historians have established that the Gospel of John is entirely dependent of the Gospels, and is not in any way reliant on them, directly or indirectly, and it has been shown that there is no evidence as of yet to suggest this. Thus, the gospel writers were either on the spot themselves, or they had access to people who were.

Academics have also affirmed that the Gospels were written under the genre of ancient biography.[26] In fact, the great scholar Craig Keener states the following relating to the genre that the four Gospel accounts were written under;

Through most of history, readers understood the Gospels as biographies, but after 1915 scholars tried to find some other classification for them, mainly because these scholars confused ancient and modern biography and noticed that the Gospels differed from the latter. The current trend, however, is again to recognize the Gospels as ancient biographies.[27]

The gospel accounts were written early on, within a few decades of the death of Jesus, which is comparable to the earliness of most other ancient documents of ancient history. Much of our accounts of King Herod come 150 years after his death from the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, and our earliest biographies on Alexander the Great were written a staggering 400 years after his death. Therefore, the gospels are considered to be historical documents by scholars, and early enough to contain a number of authentic memories of his life and death.

Acts

The book of Acts was written by Luke and provides historical data on the earliest days of the Christianity including Paul's travels. It also discusses post-resurrection events with the earliest followers.

Table 3. Details on the Life of Jesus Acts
Jesus is from Nazareth Acts 2:22
House of Israel put Jesus to be crucified Acts 2:36
Jesus stayed with his disciples for 40 days Acts 1:3
Judas guided the arrest of Jesus Acts 1:16-17
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist Acts 1:22

Ancient Creeds

Many of Paul's letters, and other New Testament epistles, contain quotations from early creeds or creedal hymns. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. The great value of these texts as sources is elaborated upon by O. Cullmann, in his, The Earliest Christian Confessions trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949), and also G. R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press, 1996). Much of the data below is taken from the latter.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.[28] The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[29] Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"[30] whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."[31]

Other relevant creeds which predate the texts wherein they are found that have been identified are 1 John 4:2:,"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God",[32] 2 Timothy 2:8, "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, this is my Gospel",[33] Romans 1:3-4, "…regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.",[34] and 1 Timothy 3:16, "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory," an early creedal hymn.[35] These early creeds represent enormously early testimony of the historicity of Jesus, and their earliness combined with their large variety are most well-explained and understood in a historical framework where Jesus did exist, rather than some elaborate plan early on that has no known precedent whatsoever.

Early Church Fathers

See also: Early Christianity and Church Fathers

Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and the historical details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians (c. 100), Ignatius of Antioch's many epistles (c. 107-110), Justin Martyr's second century apologetic works, and others. But perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early second century references of Papias and Quadratus (of Athens). They both mention disciples of Jesus – eyewitnesses who testified to his life and miracles – who were still alive at the time they wrote. Papias, in giving his sources for the information contained in his (now lost) gospel commentaries, stated:

…if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — [that is,] what [according to the elders] Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.[36]

Thus, while Papias was collecting his information (c. 90), Aristion and the elder John (who were Jesus’ disciples) were still alive and teaching in Asia minor, and Papias gathered information from people who had known them.[37] Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, stated:

The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times.[38]

By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” he presumably refers to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.[39]

Other early Christian texts mention Jesus is in detail. The Didache, for example, is a collection of teachings based on the apostolic witness, which itself was based on Jesus’ doctrine. Many of these texts, however, are too late (dating to the second half of the second century) to be used as proper historical sources, at least not without much caution, and they cannot establish the same claim to eyewitness authority as can the other writings mentioned above.

See also Diatessaron

Pseudo-Christian Sources

An early heretical section known as gnosticism produced texts that purported to contain information about Jesus, generally his (enigmatic) sayings. They are very dubious sources, dating to the second half of the second century at the earliest, and lacking a historical connection to the disciples (despite their claims). They are perhaps most useful in reminding us of how good the earlier (and orthodox) gospels are, by presenting us with an example of what an inaccurate source concerning Jesus really looks like. Furthermore, the gnostic texts show a general disinterest in the historical details of Jesus’ life, and they fail to present a standard historical narrative, giving only a list of sayings framed in the structure of an alleged secret revelation.

Nonetheless, certain Gnostic texts do mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have, with great caution, sought to glean certain bits of information about Jesus from them.[40] The relevance for us in not so much the conclusions of these scholars, but the fact that, in a minimal and contingent way, they help dispel the notion that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. Examples of such texts include the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, and the Apocryphon of John, the latter of which opens with the following:

It happened one day when John, the brother of James – who are sons of Zebedee – went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?" And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came." The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers."[41]

Greco-Roman Sources

Greco-Roman sources of the time show little to no interest in the religious movements of the backwater and troublesome Jewish province of Judea, or even the Near East in general. Perhaps the exception would be Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian who was interested in recording Jewish history, especially the political conflicts that lead to the military downfall of zealous Jewish nationalistic movements. Though not centrally concerned with religious developments, Josephus did mention Jesus, and other Christians such as James and the Precursor of the Lord, St. John the Baptist (who may be considered Christian since he accepted Jesus as the Christ, though he would be beheaded long before Jesus’ death and glorification). Furthermore, other writers do mention Jesus as well, and their passages will be examined below.

The sum total of this material establishes that Jesus existed, and that he was a significant figure who made a marked religious impact. His Messianic claims, his reputation and following, his crucifixion, and the controversy between him (and his followers) and the Jewish authorities are all supported by these texts. Furthermore, it may be that more dramatic occurrences, such as his miracles and even resurrection, are witnessed by Josephus – though these greater claims about the Greco-Roman material are certainly open to debate. Without a doubt, the best material concerning Jesus remains the gospels and other New Testament texts, as well as the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers. But these Greco-Roman sources provide important secondary testimony and, even taken alone, are enough to refute the view that Jesus is merely a mythological imagination.

Josephus

Testimonium Flavianum: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3[42]

James, Brother of Jesus Passage: "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrim without his consent."

-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1

Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37 – 100) was a Jewish general of Galilee, the region where Jesus had his ministry, in the 60s AD and worked directly under Anannus II who had James, the brother of Jesus executed.[15] The father of Annaus II, namely Annanus I, was at the trial of Jesus, giving a strong set of sources for Josephus’ information on Jesus, his brother James, and other events in Galilee.[15] Furthermore, Josephus even lived near Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus, for a time and trained tens of thousands of soldiers in Galilee during the Jewish revolt against the Romans.[15] His social networks on people who knew Jesus and other notable people in the New Testament were notably extensive.[43]

Josephus was historian and eventually became a Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavian dynasty after losing to Rome on the Jewish revolt. Josephus is unusual in that, while he was Jewish, he was loyal to the Roman political powers later in life. In A. D. 93 he wrote his Antiquities of the Jews, a work recording the history of the Jews. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. The second mentioning is the shorter, and will be discussed first. It is a completely disinterested comment made in passing, where, when talking about James, Josephus specifies which James he means by identifying his subject as James "the brother [or kinsman] of Jesus, who was called Christ".[44] Scholars have found little or no reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage and have, by and large, accepted it as genuine.[45]

More notably, an earlier mention of Jesus is made in a passage that has come to be called the Testimonium Flavianum:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[46]

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.[47] However, certain parts have been called into question, especially those which conform with the Christian creed. These doubts are not based on the manuscript record, which is consistent, nor on the language, which is stylistically harmonious with Josephus.[48] Concerning the Testimonium Flavianum, Habermas wrote, "There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for these statements about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore."[49] And there are even a few scholars who support the authenticity of the entire passage.[50]

Nonetheless, the fact that Josephus, by all accounts an adherent to Judaism, would so openly proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah who rose from the dead has been hard for many to accept, especially given Josephus's later statement, which reservedly said only that Jesus was “called” the Christ. Likewise, the fact that some of the early Church Fathers did not employ this text, even when quoting from Josephus, has contributed to the doubts. However, this is (with one exception) an argument from silence, and some (later) Fathers did know the passage. The exception is Origen, who wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Though it is important not to take this one utterance too far, it does raise a legitimate question about the authenticity of the entire passage. Whatever the case, it is in no sense necessary to affirm the entirety of the passage in order to establish that Josephus did indeed record Jesus as a historical person, a claim that virtually every scholar (opinions about the integrity of the passage aside) would agree with. Indeed, the brief reference, concerning James, alone is enough to establish not only that Jesus was a real historical person, but that he had a significant impact, since Josephus could clarify which (of the many) people named James he was talking about merely by pointing to his relation with Jesus.

Tacitus

Tacitus was a Roman historian who, writing c. A. D. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Jesus Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome in A. D. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and the most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[51]

Tacitus was obviously hostile to Christianity and thus had no desire to give credence to the claims of the faith. Nonetheless, he identifies “Christ” (Latin Christus) as the origin of the religion, and even mentions his crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Tacitus's source was likely an imperial record, and it has been speculated that this may even have been one of Pilate's reports to the emperor.[52] No scholar doubts the authenticity of the passage, in part because, as R. E. Van Voorst noted, it would be most improbable that a Christian would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[53]

Suetonius

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, a Roman historian, wrote in A. D. 112 his Lives of the Twelve Caesars. In his biography of the Emperor Claudius, he mentioned riots that had broken out in the Jewish community in Rome in 49, stating "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [other manuscripts read Christus, that is, “Christ”], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome". (The riots and expulsion of the Jews was also recorded in Acts 18:2). Though some manuscripts read “Christus”, the original text may have read “Chrestus”, a possible spelling error or spelling variant intending to mean “Christ”.[54] The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts as a reference Jesus.[55] Obviously, the riots occurred some years after Jesus’ death and ascension, and so the precise meaning of the passage is open to speculation.

Thallus

Thallus, whose identity is difficult to determine, is known to have written a history from the Trojan War to his own time, which was sometime in the first or early second century. His work has been lost. However, an important reference to it was made by Sextus Julius Africanus. Julius Africanus, writing around 221, described the darkness and earthquakes which occurred when Our Lord was crucified (mentioned in the gospels). He cited Thallus as a non-Christian who gave testimony to these events:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.[56]

(lost) Acts of Pilate

The Acts of Pilate is a lost text, purportedly an official document (of the commentaii principis) from Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius reporting events in Palestine. It was mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (c. A. D. 150) to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. Justin said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius Pilate".[57] With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated the details of Jesus' life before the Senate, an event that is almost universally considered absurd.[58] However, Tertullian may not have been well informed about the work's genuine contents, and doubts about the supposed debate need not necessarily extend to the Acts of Pilate itself.

There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly fanciful, by the same name, which was likely inspired by Justin's reference. It is highly unlikely that Justin's reference was to the known apocryphal text.[59] And it would be unlikely that Justin would cite a document, one he claimed to be official and kept in the imperial archives, that was known to be fallacious or non-existent in a letter written to the emperor designed to defend Christianity. Nonetheless, it is impossible to conclude any certain position about the text, given the obscure nature of the evidence.

Jewish records

Rabbi Akiba, before his death in A. D. 135, recorded oral traditions, especially of a legal nature, in what is known as the Mishnah. This, together with commentaries called the “Gemaras”, constitute the Talmud. Sanhedrin 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

One the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[60]

The reference is certainly laconic, and at first the details seem incompatible with what is known about Jesus’ death. However, once it is observed that the phrase “hanged” was a manner of speech that was used to signify crucifixion (as in “hanged from a tree”), the passage may be interpreted as providing important support for Jesus’ death, around the Passover, in part because of accusations of blasphemy (enticing Israel to apostacy) and because of his wonderworkings (taken as sorcery, i.e. the product of devilish aid – an accusation recorded in the gospels). The act of stoning is not directly paralleled in the gospels, though John's gospel does record such an attempt. It is important not to push this harmonization too far, especially because it misses the point, which is to observe a plausible Jewish record of key feature's of Jesus’ life.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf is often cited in the field of Christian legal apologetics.

Christ myth arguments and proponents

Christ myth theory has been around for over 250 years and has never had much traction among actual experts of both secular or religious backgrounds.[61]

Most mythicists employ similar main arguments: they argue that non-biblical sources do not state that Jesus existed; that the Pauline epistles, which preceded the Gosples, do not establish that Jesus existed; and Jesus was not perceived by the earliest Christians as a recent person but as a being or person from a long mythical past (similar to Hercules or Achilles)[62]

Mythicist theories tend to be fringe or conspiracy theories: Jesus was some sort of extraterrestrial from outer space, perhaps an archangel (Richard Carrier),[63] Jesus and early Christians were Buddhists (Michael Lockwood);[64] Jesus was invented by the Flavians, the family of Caesars who conquered Judea (Joseph Atwill),[64] Jesus was mushroom hallucinogenic manifestation (John Allego),[64] Jesus is based on astrology and zodiac signs from which Mark wrote his gospel (Bill Darlison),[64] Jesus is the main character of Mark whose gospel is really a play (Danila Oder),[64] Jesus is invented from a mish-mash of dying and rising gods or heroes or Old Testament parallels (Robert Price),[62] Jesus was invented on the basis of earlier deities, astrological entities and fertility myths of dying and rising gods (Acahrya S).[65]

A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination. These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German, who has subsequently abandoned this position after reading the works of the renowned J.D.G. Dunn), Earl Doherty (who only holds a bachelor's degree and once wrote a self-published booklet on the subject), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Richard Carrier (who, although he has a doctoral degree, failed to find an academic position in an institution of higher learning and is therefore currently a blogger), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what it true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars. Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced. For example, in their work The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “Orpheus crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.[66]

Scholarly reception and criticism

Historiographers of christ myth theory point out that mythicism has no real proponents in academia, despite their claims otherwise.[67] Modern scholars of religion hold that tropes like "dying and rising gods" are outdated and based on dubious reconstructions from later sources, not early indigenous sources, since the earliest extant sources of examples mythicists often use (e.g. Adonis, Attis, Marduk, Tammuz/Dumuzi, Osiris, Inanna, etc) never make such claims, and there is no clear instance of a dying and rising deity narrative in the history of religions.[68]

The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods:

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.[69]

Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst:

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.[70]

Mythicist attempt to manipulate non-religious scholarly consensus

In 2007 secular scholar Raymond Joseph Hoffmann started the Jesus Project which was supposed to be a non-religious investigation on Jesus and was headed by the Center for Inquiry which is secular humanist organization promoting a secular society.[71] It members included liberal scholars, nonreligious scholars and even inlcuded mythicists (e.g. Frank Zindler, Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, Stephen Law, Thomas Thompson etc).[72] Only two years later in 2009, the Jesus Project was shut down in part due to the attempt by mythicist members trying to form their own faction due to the majority of nonreligious experts not supporting their mythicist views: "“mythers,” people out to prove through consensus with each other a conclusion they cannot establish through evidence".[73]

Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed

Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.

See also: Atheists and historical illiteracy and Atheism and evidence

Historical illiteracy and an ignorance of historiography is widespread among atheists (see: Atheists and historical illiteracy).

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed.

In an article entitled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.[74]

For more information, please see: Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed.

Atheists and selective use of academic consensus

An irony of atheists asserting that Jesus never existed is that atheists often appeal to the academic consensus when it comes to pseudoscience such evolution. Atheists only seem to find it typical to quote the scholarly consensus when it appeals to their positions as something with value, however scholarly consensus seems to lose all value when it does not agree with them.

See also: Atheist hypocrisy

John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins

John Lennox pointed out to New Atheist Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book The God Delusion that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".[75]

Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

See also: Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.[76] The Christian apologist Michael Horner of CRU has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ entitled Did Jesus really rise from the dead?. In addition, Dr. Gary Habermas offers an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Tim Chaffey of Answers in Genesis offers an excellent defense of Jesus's resurrection, as does GotQuestions.org.

In recent history, Dr. Gary Habermas is considered the foremost Christian apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus.[77][78][79][80][81] Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher Antony Flew regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III, Th.M. in his essay Evidences for the Resurrection wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." [82]

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Edwin M. Yamauchi, N.T. Wright and Michael Horner.[83][84][85][86][87]

Christian legal apologetics

For more information please see: Christian legal apologetics

Legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as Simon Greenleaf, John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, Hugo Grotius, Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, Lionel Luckhoo, and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ.[88]

The boldness of the early Christian church and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ

See also: Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christian apologetics and Evidential apologetics

St. Paul defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)

Eric Lyons, M. Min. wrote about the explosive growth of early Christianity:

To say that the first-century church was a growing church would be a major understatement. The early church did not merely grow; she exploded onto the scene and continued multiplying in number for many years. About 3,000 souls obeyed the Gospel the very day the church was born in Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago (Acts 2:41). To that number, “the Lord added…daily those who were being saved” (2:47). Despite attempts to stifle the preaching of Jesus and the growth of His church, “many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men1 came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:4). “Believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women” (5:14). In Jerusalem, “the disciples multiplied greatly;” even “a great many” of the Jewish priests were “obedient to the faith” (6:7). In Samaria, “the multitudes with one accorded heeded the things spoken by Philip” (8:6); “both men and women were baptized” (8:12). Indeed, “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria…continued to increase” (9:31, NASB).

After Paul’s conversion to Christ, He took the Gospel to Cilicia where the young “churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily” (16:5). Later, “all who dwelt in Asia [Minor] heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (19:10). Even Paul’s enemies testified to how “throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people” from idolatry (19:26). Paul and his companions also carried the Gospel to Europe, where “a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women” joined them (17:4). And what did Paul learn upon his return to Jerusalem following his third missionary journey? That “many myriads of Jews” had come to believe in Jesus (21:20). That is, within less than 30 years, the Lord’s church had increased to become many tens of thousands of Christians strong...

Luke, the physician and inspired writer of Acts, sets the “defense” tone from the very beginning of his brief history of the first 30 years of the Lord’s church. In the first sentence, He reminds his readers of his previous account (the Gospel of Luke), where he recorded those things that Jesus did and taught. In the very next sentence, he concisely, yet reasonably, addressed one critical piece of evidence that would be repeated throughout Acts9 and that lies at the heart of the Good News: Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. How did Luke briefly convey the resurrection of Christ? Was it merely an unverifiable “hope” that he communicated? Did he make an emotionally based appeal using flowery words? Not at all. From the very outset, Luke set an apologetic tone for the book of Acts.

Luke indicated that to the apostles Jesus “presented Himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (1:3, ESV). Notice that Luke affirms that Jesus “presented” (parestasen) Himself alive. Jesus’ dead body was not stolen and buried elsewhere. He did not just escape the tomb to leave everyone in doubt about a possible resurrection. He “presented” or “showed” (NIV) Himself. Luke used this term 13 times in Acts, including in Acts 9:41 where, after God raised Dorcas from the dead, Luke noted that Peter “called the saints and widows” and “presented her alive” to them. He proved to them that she was no longer dead. Likewise, the once-lifeless body of the Lord rose from the dead, and then, over the next 40 days, Jesus repeatedly presented Himself alive to the apostles—offering “many proofs.”[89]

The John Ankerberg website notes:

After Jesus’ death his apostles were scared, scattered, and skeptical. Only one, John, was at the crucifixion (John 19:26-27). The rest fled (Matt. 26:56). They also were skeptical. Mary, the first one to whom Jesus appeared, doubted, thinking she had seen a gardener (John 20:15). The disciples doubted the reports of the women (Luke 24:11). Some doubted until they saw Christ for themselves (John 20:25). One would not even believe when all the other apostles told them Christ had appeared to them. Two disciples on the road to Emmaus even doubted as they talked with Jesus, thinking he was a stranger (Luke 24:18).

A few weeks [later] these very same men and women who had huddled in secret (John 20:19) were fearlessly and openly proclaiming the resurrection of Christ—even before the Sanhedrin that was responsible for Christ’s death (Acts 4-5). The only thing that can account for this immediate and miraculous change is that they were absolutely convinced they had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.[90]

Books

  • The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas. College Press Publishing Company, Incorporated. ‎August 21, 2023
  • The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel by Lee Strobel. Zondervan Publishing Company. 2007
  • Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham. Eerdmans. April 28, 2017
  • The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre. Image. February 2, 2016
  • The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona. ‎ IVP Academic. April 28, 2010
  • The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition by Paul Rhodes Eddy & Greg Boyd. Baker Academic. August 1, 2007
  • The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg. ‎IVP Academic. October 18, 2007
  • Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. Thomas Nelson. October 3, 2017

See also

External links

Videos:

Notes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus exist?: The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper Collins, 2012. pages 4-6 "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure...What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal. But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist."
  2. Amy-Jill Levine. 2006. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691009926. page 4 "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate."
  3. Richard Carrier. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 9781909697355 p.2,3 "..what is, after all, the near-universal consensus of well-qualified experts." and p. 21:"The historicity of Jesus Christ is currently the default consensus."
  4. Robert Van Voorst. 2000. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689. page 16."The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.
  5. Robert Van Voorst Robert. 2003. "Nonexistence Hypothesis". Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 9781576078563."The argument that Jesus never existed, but was invented by the Christian movement around the year 100, goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born. Although mainstream scholarship has not paid attention to this argument in recent decades, debate on the existence of Jesus has been on the fringes of scholarship and popular religious discussion for more than two centuries.
  6. Mark Allan Powell. 2014. Historical Jesus Studies Today: An Update. The Bible and Interpretation. University of Arizona. "First, there is the work of mythicists who claim that Jesus never existed. The notion that Jesus is a completely legendary figure (like Robin Hood or King Arthur) or a total fabrication of the church has been bandied about at a popular level for centuries, usually among atheist or vehemently anti-Christian groups who rely on elaborate conspiracy theories rather than academic evidence."
  7. Ken Dark. 2023. Archaeology of Jesus' Nazareth. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192865397. Pages 150-152
  8. 8.0 8.1 Bart Ehrman. 2016. Bart Ehrman Blog. Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed. “By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again)…. But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death. Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John.”
  9. Joshua Schachterle. 2024. 15 Historically Accurate Facts About Jesus Bart Ehrman Blog
  10. The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries: Volume 1. 2025. T&T Clark. page 3. ISBN 0567716899
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Bart Ehrman. 2012. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780062206442. pages 130-132 "Where did Paul get all this received tradition, from whom, and most important, when? Paul himself gives us some hints. He indicates in Galatians 1 that originally, before his conversion, he had been a fierce persecutor of the church of Christ, but then on the basis of some kind of mysterious revelation he came to see that Jesus really was the Son of God, and he converted. After three years, he tells us, he made a trip to Jerusalem, and there he spent fifteen days with Cephas and James. Cephas was one of Jesus’s twelve disciples, and James was his brother.. And when would this have been? Since Paul sometimes provides a time frame (“three years later” or “after fifteen years”), it is possible to put together a rough chronology of Paul’s life... So Paul converted sometime in the 30s CE... it appears that he must have converted early in the 30s, say, the year 32 or 33, just two or three years after the death of Jesus. This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them, and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the year 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.. We do not have to wait for the Gospel of Mark around 70 CE to hear about the historical Jesus, as mythicists are fond of claiming. This evidence from Paul dovetails perfectly with what we found from the Gospel traditions, whose oral sources almost certainly also go all the way back into the 30s to Roman Palestine."
  12. Bart Ehrman. 2012. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780062206442. "And so in the letter to the Galatians Paul states as clearly as possible that he knew Jesus's brother. Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this? The fact that Paul knew Jesus's closest disciple and his own brother throws a real monkey wrench into the mythicist view that Jesus never lived." page 146.
  13. 13.0 13.1 Craig Blomberg. 2022. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Third Edition). B&H Academic. ISBN 9781087753157. pages 601-605
  14. Michael Bird. 2021. The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108437707. pages 98–100. “At the moment, the consensus in scholarship is that the gospels are best described as a variation of Greco-Roman biography… In the mid-second century, Justin Martyr’s preferred way for referring to the gospels was as “the memoirs of the Apostles” (ta apomnēmoneumata tōn apostolōn). This evinces Justin’s understanding that they stand in some literary analogy to the Greco-Roman biographical tradition and books such as Xenophon’s “Memoirs of Socrates” and similar works. By using the term “memoirs,” Justin is the first, as far as we know, to liken the gospels to the biographical tradition.”
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 Thomas Schmidt. 2025. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (free ebook). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191957697. pages 145–147.
  16. Alice Whealey. 2015. "The Testimonium Flavianum". A Companion to Josephus. Wiley-Blackwell. page 354. ISBN 9781118325162."Although the thesis of total fabrication was probably in the majority by the late nineteenth century, this opinion was never unanimous among critical scholars; many, pointing in particular to Jerome’s ancient literal translation with the variant reading “he was believed to be the Christ” (“credebatur esse Christus”), argued that the phrase in the textus receptus “he was the Christ,” and perhaps a few others, had been corrupted over time. By the late twentieth century, the view that the text was partly authentic gained scholarly ground: in part because stylistic studies revealed it to be closer to Josephus’s language than was once assumed, and in part because scholars of the primitive church no longer assume that a Jew of priestly background—like Josephus—could not have written in such a positive way about Jesus or those he attracted. The discovery that a literal Syriac translation of the text containing a phrase parallel to Jerome’s phrase reading “he was believed to be the Christ” reveals that there must once have been a Greek Testimonium with such a reading, and this has played a role in shifting the view that the text is at least partly authentic towards what seems to be a current scholarly consensus, with those scholars maintaining the thesis of complete fabrication becoming a minority, if still a significant one."
  17. Daniel Schwartz, Flavius Josephus. 2025. Judean Antiquities, Books 18-20: Translation and Commentary. Brill. ISBN 978-9004703681. Pages 76, 306
  18. Louis Feldman. 1987. Josephus, Judaism and Christianity.BRILL. p.56 ISBN 9789004085541. "That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage—the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged—about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of "the aforementioned Christ."
  19. Christopher Hansen. 2022. "Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus". Journal of Early Christian History. 12 (2): 17–40 "The theory of a pre-Christian Jesus, while exceptionally intriguing, still has not found any decent footing in recent years. Though there have been some attempts at innovating the concept, invariably the arguments for this have relied heavily on conjectural interpretations of biblical and extrabiblical literature in an attempt to validate the hypothesis. The arguments tend to rely on specious interpretations of the ancient texts, various conjectures, and, in Price's case, a reliance on outdated and long-since disproven concepts. All of these issues, and more, demonstrate that the pre-Christian Jesus hypothesis is still an unreliable thesis, and likely should be discounted as it was a century ago. The renovated theories fail to convincingly explain the evidence at hand."
  20. George A. Wells. "Ehrman on the Historicity of Jesus and Early Christian Thinking". Free Inquiry. Volume 32. Number 4. Issue June/July 2012. pages: 58-62. "Ehrman is well aware that I have come to modify my originally mythicist position, and he states correctly that I now think that there really was a man Jesus but that we can know very little about him (19, 241). In fact I agree with his view that “Jesus really existed” but “was not the person most Christians today believe in” (143). That he nevertheless continues to label me a mythicist is confusing."
  21. Daniel Gullotta. 2017."On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2–3): 310–346."Scholars, however, may rightly question whether Carrier’s work and those who evangelize it exhibit the necessary level of academic detachment. If David L. Barrett was right, ‘That every generation discovers the historical Jesus that it needs’, then it is not surprising that a group with a passionate dislike for Jesus (and his ancient and modern associates) has found what they were looking for: a Jesus who conveniently does them the favor of not existing anywhere except in the imagination of deluded fundamentalists in the past and present. Whereas mythicists will accuse scholars of the historical Jesus of being apologists for the theology of historic Christianity, mythicists may in turn be accused of being apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism."
  22. Bart Ehrman. 2012. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780062206442. pages 336-338 "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist...To be sure, they are doing theology in order to oppose traditional religion. But the question is not driven by historical concerns but by religious ones."
  23. Bill Cooke. "Five Challenges to Christ Myth Theorists". Free Inquiry. Volume 44. Number 5. Issue August/September 2024. "The understanding of Jesus advanced by the Third Quest scholars is shared by people of different persuasions: Christian, Jewish, and atheist. It is a conclusion open to anyone who values evidence over prior belief. The myth theory, by stark contrast, is supported only by a minority of mostly American humanists. No significant humanist body outside North America invests any serious time with the myth theory. For example, a recent pamphlet from the British Humanist Association titled “Who Was Jesus?” deals peremptorily with this issue of historicity: “Did Jesus exist? Almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed in the first century CE in Palestine.”
  24. False Ideas About Jesus Christ by Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier
  25. quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 31.
  26. Quotations of academics on genre of the Gospels
  27. Keener, Craig, Commentary on Matthew, Intervarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Ill., 1997, 24
  28. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47; Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Earlychurch: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1969) p. 251; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80-82, 293; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92
  29. see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968)p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66-66; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81; Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity New York: Random House, 1986 pp. 110, 118; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2; Hans Grass, Ostergeschen und Osterberichte, Second Edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) p96; Grass favors the origin in Damascus.
  30. Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44
  31. Archibald Hunter, Works and Words of Jesus (1973) p. 100
  32. Cullmann, Confessions p. 32
  33. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol 1, pp. 49, 81; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102
  34. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) pp. 118, 283, 367; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 50; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) p. 14
  35. Reginald Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scriner's, 1965) pp. 214, 216, 227, 239; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 9, 128
  36. translation by Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-16.
  37. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-21.
  38. Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2, translation by Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 53.
  39. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 53l.
  40. James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) and especially his essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986); R. E. Brown, "The Christians Who Lost Out" in The New York Times Book Review, 20 January 1980 p. 3; Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi in English, vol. 2 pp. 4, 47, 68, 150-154, 180.
  41. Apocryphon of John 1:5-17
  42. https://onepeterfive.com/secularists-proof-resurrection/
  43. Thomas Schmidt. 2025. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (free ebook). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191957697. page 7. "All this occasions some further, significant discoveries. After analyzing Josephus’ social network, it becomes possible to actually identify the names of certain of Josephus’ acquaintances who were likely partisans in the trial of Jesus. The most probable candidate is the High Priest Ananus II. He was the brother-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas and the son of the High Priest Ananus I (Annas in the Gospels), both of whom put Jesus to death. As the reader will see, Ananus II had good reason to be in attendance at Jesus’ trial and Josephus did know Ananus II directly. And there are several other candidates too, whom Josephus also knew and who were in all probability also at the trial of Jesus. And not only this, but it is evident that Josephus knew still others within his large social network who had facilitated judicial proceedings against Jesus’ apostles. The most prominent of these are undoubtedly King Herod Agrippa II, who attended the trial of the apostle Paul, and once again the High Priest Ananus II, who executed James, the brother of Jesus. Taken as a whole then, the evidence indicates that the Testimonium Flavianum was indeed composed by Josephus, a man who actually knew those who put Jesus and the apostles on trial. It hence offers remarkable insight into both the Jesus of history and the early Christian movement. We would do well to consider carefully what it says."
  44. Josephus Antiquities 20:9.1
  45. Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990–91
  46. Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3
  47. John Drane Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; also, James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96
  48. Henri Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries p. 21; J.N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969)p. 20; F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967) p. 108.
  49. G. R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus p. 193
  50. Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries p. 21
  51. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
  52. F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 23.
  53. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdmans, 2000), p. 43.
  54. Francois Amiot, Jesus A Historical Person p. 8; F. F. Bruce, Christian Origins p. 21
  55. see his translation of Suetonius, Claudius 25, in The Twelve Caesars (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), and his introduction p. 7, cf. p. 197
  56. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings XVIII in Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) vol. VI, p. 130
  57. Justin Martyr, First Apology 48
  58. see Tertullian, Apology V.
  59. For a discussion, see Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries, p. 14
  60. The Babylonian Talmud, translated I. Epstein (London: Soncio, 1935), vol. 3, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281
  61. Larry Hurtado (Scholar). December 2017. "Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars" Response to Richard Carrier. "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."
  62. 62.0 62.1 .Robert Price. 2009. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" essay. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830838684.
  63. Richard Carrier. 2020. Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 9781634311946."The most accurate description of earliest Christian thought is that Jesus was an angelic extraterrestrial, who descended from outer space to become a man, teach the gospel, suffer an atoning death, and rise again to return to his throne among the stars, even more powerful than before." (page 8-9) and "If Jesus was never really a historical person, then what the original Christians were teaching was that this ancient archangel descended from the superior heavens, not to Earth, but into the sky, below the top ring of outer space, then known as a vast and terrifying region between the earth and moon, the realm of all flesh, where death and decay, and Satan and his demons, were known to hold sway. And there is where Jesus was originally believed to have died, crucified not by the Romans on Earth, or by the Jews, but by Satan or his agents, far above the clouds. And there is where Jesus’s mortal bodysuit was buried, perhaps in some garden among the demonic sky castles. And three days later he rose from the dead and revealed his glory to all the heavenly creatures, Satan among them.” (p.32-33)
  64. 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 John Loftus and Robert Price (editors). 2022. Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. Hypatia Press. ISBN-10 1839191589
  65. James McGrath. November 2011. Fringe view: The world of Jesus mythicism. The Christian Century.
  66. "In his review of this book in Gnomon, 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde, 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his Blog
  67. Chrissy Hansen. 2023. Medium. Is Mythicism Going Mainstream?: The Illusion of Scholarly Support in Mythicist Circles
  68. Jonathan Z. Smith. "Dying and Rising Gods". Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd edition). Macmillan Reference. 2005. pp. 2535-2539. ISBN 978-0028659978. "There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity."
  69. M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200
  70. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
  71. The Jesus Project Center for Inquiry
  72. Fellows Jesus Project Center for Inquiry
  73. R. Joseph Hoffman Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project Bible and Interpretation. October 2009. "Alas, The Jesus Project itself became a subject for exploitation: news stories, promotional material and the reactions in the blogosphere focused on the Big Question: “Scholars to Debate whether Jesus Really existed.” Given the affections of media, the only possible newsworthy outcome was assumed to be He didn’t. Such a conclusion had it ever been reached (as it would not have been reached by the majority of participants) would only have been relevant to the people April DeConnick (a participant) has described as “mythers,” people out to prove through consensus with each other a conclusion they cannot establish through evidence. The first sign of possible trouble came when I was asked by one such “myther” whether we might not start a “Jesus Myth” section of the project devoted exclusively to those who were committed to the thesis that Jesus never existed. I am not sure what “committed to a thesis” entails, but it does not imply the sort of skepticism that the myth theory itself invites.
  74. Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price
  75. Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed
  76. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt
  77. http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm
  78. http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html
  79. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf
  80. http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm
  81. http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html
  82. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639
  83. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
  84. http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
  85. http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
  86. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
  87. http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/
  88. Apologetics and the growth of the early church, Eric Lyons, Apologetics Press website
  89. EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD, John Ankerberg website