Jump to content

Historicity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.74.162.23 (talk) at 04:20, 7 November 2023 (→Modern scholarship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Jesus
Jesus in Christianity
Jesus in Islam
Background
Jesus in history
Perspectives on Jesus
Jesus in culture

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed (as opposed to being a purely mythical figure). The mainstream scholarly consensus is that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][note 1] The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.[note 2]

Only two key events of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, namely his baptism and crucifixion.[2][3][4][5] There is no scholarly consensus concerning other elements of Jesus's life (including his purported miracles or resurrection).[note 3] Standard historical criteria are used in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives.[6] Academic efforts to determine facts of Jesus's life are part of the quest for the historical Jesus.

Besides the gospels and the letters of Paul, sources for the historicity of Jesus include the works of Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus, who both lived shortly after the time of Jesus and wrote in reference to him and his followers.

Modern scholarship

Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus

Virtually all mainstream scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][7][8][note 1] Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century.[9][10][11] 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.[12][13] Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.[14][15]

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".[16] 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".[17] 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.[18][19]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.[1][8][20][21][22][23] In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[11][24][25][26][note 2] However, some recent scholars believe they can write about the historical Jesus while also sidestepping some of the issues of Jesus' historicity. In their recent book on the historical Jesus, James Crossley and Robert J. Myles state that they are "skeptical about what we can know with confidence and so we prefer to think in terms of whether ideas about Jesus were early or late and whether they were particular to his geographical location or beyond."[34]

Sources for the historicity of Jesus

Main article: Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Judea Province during the 1st century

There exist secular sources, Jewish sources, and Christian sources that support his existence.[10][35] Bart D. Ehrman argues that there are about 25 to 30 "independent sources that know there was a man Jesus", including 16 in the New Testament,[36] which represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity. There are also many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries CE that are related to Jesus.[37] 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.[38][39] Paul's first meeting with Peter was around 36 AD.[39] Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion and his conversion occurred two years after this event.[40] Paul mentioned details in his letters such as that Jesus was a Jew, born of the line of David, and had biological brothers.[40] 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.[41] Evans argues that archeological research correlates with basic details found in surviving sources on Jesus, shedding light on aspects of his life.[42]

There are numerous Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition[which?]) that talk about Jesus.[43][44] Such sources are additional independent sources on Jesus's existence and corroborate details found in other surviving sources.[44][45] There is no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[46][47]

Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography.[48][49][50][51][52] On the quality of available sources, 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.[53] However, scholars like Craig Blomberg argue that the source material on Jesus does correlate significantly with historical data.[6] There are also archeological finds that corroborate aspects of the life of Jesus mentioned in the surviving sources.[54] According to Christopher M. Tuckett, most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus and 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.[55] 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.[56] 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.[57]

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.[58] 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.[59] 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.[60] Nonetheless, non-Christian sources do exist and they corroborate some details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources.[44]

Historian Michael Grant argues 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 anymore than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.[61]

New Testament sources

Synoptic Gospels

Main article: 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.[62][63] 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,[64] and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic.[65] 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.[66][note 4] Aramaic sources have been detected in Mark's Gospel, which could indicate use of early or even eyewitness testimony when it was being written.[67][68] 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.[69]

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately 20 to 30 years after the generally accepted time period of Jesus's death) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus.[70][failed verification] Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus[71] and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person[note 5] and a Jew.[72][73][74][75][note 6] Moreover, he interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus since he wrote about meeting and knowing James, the brother of Jesus[76][note 7][78] and Jesus's apostles Peter[78] and John.[79]

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Main articles: Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Jesus

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.[80][81][82][83]

In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[84][85] On the other hand, 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".[86][87][88][89]

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[90] 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.[91] 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.[92][93][94]

Mishnah

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus as it reflects the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[95][96][97][98] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[95][99]

Historical Jesus

Main article: Historical Jesus
Part of the ancient Madaba Map showing two possible baptism locations
Bronzino's depiction of the Crucifixion with three nails, no ropes, and a hypopodium standing support, c. 1545

Baptism and crucifixion

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[2][3][4][5][100][101]

The criterion of embarrassment has been used to argue for the historicity of the baptism of Jesus, shown here in The Baptism of Christ by Juan Fernández Navarrete.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[4] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "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."[4]

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[102] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[103][104][9] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[103][9][105]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[106]

Bart Ehrman wrote, in agreement with the view of Albert Schweitzer, that: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time".[107]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b Multiple sources:
    Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
    Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."
    Ehrman (2012, pp. 4–5): "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."
    Ehrman (2012, pp. 13): In agreement with the view of Albert Schweitzer: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time"
    Hurtado (2017): "The overwhelming body of scholars, in New Testament, Christian Origins, Ancient History, Ancient Judaism, Roman-era Religion, Archaeology/History of Roman Judea, and a good many related fields as well, hold that there was a first-century Jewish man known as Jesus of Nazareth, that he engaged in an itinerant preaching/prophetic activity in Galilee, that he drew to himself a band of close followers, and that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate."
  2. ^ a b The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship:
    • Robert E. Van Voorst, referring to G. A. Wells: "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."[27]
    • While discussing the "striking" fact that "we don't have any Roman records, of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus", Ehrman dismisses claims that this means Jesus never existed, saying, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."[28]
    • Robert M. Price, a former fundamentalist apologist who is now a Christian atheist, says the existence of Jesus cannot be ruled out, but is less probable than non-existence. He agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[29]
    • Michael Grant, a classicist, states: "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[30]
    • Paul Johnson, a historian: "His life has been written more often than that of any other human being, with infinite variations of detail, employing vast resources of scholarship, and often controversially, not to say acrimoniously. Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus's existence is abundant."[10]
    • Burge and Gould: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."[31]
    • Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[32]
    • Tuckett: "[F]arfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[33]
  3. ^ * "Introduction". The Historical Jesus: Five Views, edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic. 2009. pp. 38–39. ISBN 9780830838684. Contrary to previous times, virtually everyone in the field today acknowledges that Jesus was considered by his contemporaries to be an exorcist and a worker of miracles. However, when it comes to historical assessment of the miracles tradition itself, the consensus quickly shatters. Some, following in the footsteps of Bultmann, embrace an explicit methodological naturalism such that the very idea of a miracle is ruled out a priori. Others defend the logical possibility of miracle at the theoretical level, but, in practice, retain a functional methodological naturalism, maintaining that we could never be in possession of the type and/or amount of evidence that would justify a historical judgment in favor of the occurrence of a miracle. Still others, suspicious that an uncompromising methodological naturalism most likely reflects an unwarranted metaphysical naturalism, find such a priori skepticism unwarranted and either remain open to, or even explicitly defend, the historicity of miracles within the Jesus tradition.
    * Ehrman (2001, pp. 196–197): "I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian — for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe."
    * Bockmuehl (2001, pp. 103): "Nevertheless, what is perhaps most surprising is the extent to which contemporary scholarly literature on the 'historical Jesus' has studiously ignored and downplayed the question of the resurrection...But even the more mainstream participants in the late twentieth-century 'historical Jesus' bonanza have tended to avoid the subject of the resurrection – usually on the pretext that this is solely a matter of 'faith' or of 'theology', about which no self-respecting historian could possibly have anything to say. Precisely that scholarly silence, however, renders a good many recent 'historical Jesus' studies methodologically hamstrung, and unable to deliver what they promise...In this respect, benign neglect ranks alongside dogmatic denial and naive credulity in guaranteeing the avoidance of historical truth.
  4. ^ The Gospel of Luke states that "many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us."[53]
  5. ^ In Galatians 4:4, Paul states that Jesus was "born of a woman."
  6. ^ In Romans 1:3, Paul states that Jesus was "born under the law."
  7. ^ That Jesus had a brother named James is corroborated by Josephus.[77]

References

  1. ^ a b c Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: Writing in the Name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256–257
  2. ^ a b Herzog 2005, pp. 1–6.
  3. ^ a b Powell 1998, pp. 168–173.
  4. ^ a b c d Dunn 2003, p. 339.
  5. ^ a b Crossan 1994, p. 145.
  6. ^ a b Blomberg, Craig (2011). "New Testament Studies in North America". In Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Yarbrough, Robert W. (eds.). Understanding The Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century. Crossway. p. 282. ISBN 978-1-4335-0719-9. The fruit of a decade of work by the IBR Historical Jesus Study Group, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence [Ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).] takes a dozen core themes or events from Jesus' life and ministry and details the case for their authenticity via all the standard historical criteria, as well as assessing their significance. The results show significant correlation between what historians can demonstrate and what evangelical theology has classically asserted about the life of Christ.
  7. ^ Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 p. 61
  8. ^ a b Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (1 April 2004) ISBN 0802809774 p. 34 "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more. There's a lot of evidence for his existence."
  9. ^ a b c Casey 2010, p. 35.
  10. ^ a b c Johnson 2011, p. 4.
  11. ^ a b Van Voorst 2003, pp. 658, 660.
  12. ^ Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (8 May 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pp. 9–13
  13. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pp. 19–23
  14. ^ John, Jesus, and History Volume 1 by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (14 Nov 2007) ISBN 1589832930 p. 131
  15. ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (15 Jul 2006) ISBN 1575061007 p. 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
  16. ^ Bromiley 1982, p. 1034.
  17. ^ Ehrman 2012, pp. 12, 347, n.1.
  18. ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, pp. 8–9
  19. ^ Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. pp. 55–83. ISBN 978-0-8308-3868-4
  20. ^ James D. G. Dunn (1974) Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, Citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971)): "Perhaps we should also mention that at the other end of the spectrum Paul's apparent lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus has been made the major plank in an attempt to revive the nevertheless thoroughly dead thesis that the Jesus of the Gospels was a mythical figure." An almost identical quotation is included in Dunn, James DG (1998) The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 191, and Sykes, S. (1991) Sacrifice and redemption: Durham essays in theology. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36.
  21. ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 16 "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.".
  22. ^ Casey 2014b, p. 243 "The most important result of this book is that the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false".
  23. ^ Grant 1992, p. 200 "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'".
  24. ^ Fox 2005, p. 48.
  25. ^ Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34.
  26. ^ Ehrman, Bart (25 April 2012). "Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier". The Bart Ehrman Blog. Archived from the original on 17 February 2019. Retrieved 2 May 2018.
  27. ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 16.
  28. ^ Bart D. Ehrman (2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. pp. 256–257. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.
  29. ^ James Douglas Grant Dunn (2010). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. SPCK. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-281-06329-1.
  30. ^ Grant, Michael (2004). Jesus. Orion. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-898799-88-7.
  31. ^ Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. William B. Eerdmans. pp. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.
  32. ^ Casey, Maurice (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 243. ISBN 978-0-56744-762-3.
  33. ^ Tuckett 2001, pp. 123–124.
  34. ^ James Crossley & Robert J. Myles, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict. Winchester: Zer0 Books, 2023.
  35. ^ Tuckett 2001, p. 122-125, 127.
  36. ^ Ehrman, Bart (28 October 2016). "Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed". Ehrman Blog.
  37. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 59.
  38. ^ Evans, Craig (2016). "Mythicism and the Public Jesus of History". Christian Research Journal. 39 (5).
  39. ^ a b Ehrman 2012, pp. 145–146.
  40. ^ a b Byrskog 2011, p. 2189.
  41. ^ Gathercole, Simon. "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16.2–3 (2018): 191, n. 32.
  42. ^ Evans, Craig (26 March 2012). "The Archaeological Evidence for Jesus". HuffPost.
  43. ^ Van Voorst 2000, pp. 19, 75.
  44. ^ a b c Mykytiuk, Lawrence (January 2015). "Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible". Biblical Archaeology Society.
  45. ^ Tuckett 2001, p. 124.
  46. ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0860120066 pp. 730–731
  47. ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689 p. 15
  48. ^ Stanton, G. H. (2004). Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 192.
  49. ^ Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 437
  50. ^ Talbert, C. H. (1977). What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
  51. ^ Wills, L. M. (1997). The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. London: Routledge. p. 10.
  52. ^ Burridge, R. A. (2004). What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. rev. updated edn. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
  53. ^ a b Schoeps, Hans-Joachim (1968) [1961]. The Religions of Mankind. Translated by Winston, Richard; Winston, Clara. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. pp. 261–262. ISBN 978-0-385-04080-8. The Gospels cannot be equated with ... biographies. ... [Their] primary purpose was not to present a detailed historical picture of the life of Jesus. And the non-Christian materials ... provide us with no essential new knowledge beyond the accounts of the Gospels. ... [Thus] the situation in regard to sources is highly unsatisfactory; legendary and historical accounts are hopelessly intertwined. The historian must recognize that the materials available to us do not enable us to reconstruct Jesus as he really was. [They have] only the Jesus the early disciples saw, the Christ who has survived in the beliefs of the Christian community.
  54. ^ Evans, Craig A. (2013). Jesus and his World: The Archaeological Evidence (Paperback ed.). Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664239329.
  55. ^ Tuckett 2001, p. 122.
  56. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 100-104.
  57. ^ Casey 2010, p. 63-64 "It also provides evidence that Mark is an unrevised literal translation of an Aramaic source, and this at a point where there is every reason to believe that the story is literally true. This means that our oldest source is sometimes perfectly accurate, because parts of it were originally written by people who were in close touch with the events of the historic ministry. This is only one short step away from eyewitness testimony"..
  58. ^ Meggitt, Justin J. (October 2019). "'More Ingenious than Learned'? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies. 65 (4): 458-459. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213. S2CID 203247861. For example, given that most human beings in antiquity left no sign of their existence, and the poor as individuals are virtually invisible, all we can hope to do is try to establish, in a general sense, the lives that they lived. Why would we expect any non-Christian evidence for the specific existence of someone of the socio-economic status of a figure such as Jesus at all? To deny his existence based on the absence of such evidence, even if that were the case, has problematic implications; you may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world.
  59. ^ Ehrman 2012, p. 49–50: "Think again of our earlier point of comparison, Pontius Pilate. Here is a figure who was immensely significant in every way to the life and history of Palestine during the adult life of Jesus (assuming Jesus lived), politically, economically, culturally, socially. As I have indicated, there was arguably no one more important. And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus. And these are figures who were of the highest prominence in their own day."
  60. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 93.
  61. ^ Grant 1992, p. 199-200 "But above all, 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".
  62. ^ "Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 27 November 2010. The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus
  63. ^ Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004.
  64. ^ Mark Allan Powell (editor), The New Testament Today, p. 50 (Westminster John Knox Press, 1999). ISBN 0-664-25824-7
  65. ^ Stanley E. Porter (editor), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, p. 68 (Leiden, 1997). ISBN 90-04-09921-2
  66. ^ Ehrman 2012, pp. 83–85: "All of these written sources I have mentioned are earlier than the surviving Gospels; they all corroborate many of the key things said of Jesus in the Gospels; and most important they are all independent of one another. Let me stress the latter point. We cannot think of the early Christian Gospels as going back to a solitary source that “invented” the idea that there was a man Jesus. The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive were produced. Where would the solitary source that “invented” Jesus be? Within a couple of decades of the traditional date of his death, we have numerous accounts of his life found in a broad geographical span. In addition to Mark, we have Q, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources), L (also possibly multiple sources), two or more passion narratives, a signs source, two discourse sources, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly others. And these are just the ones we know about, that we can reasonably infer from the scant literary remains that survive from the early years of the Christian church. No one knows how many there actually were. Luke says there were “many” of them, and he may well have been right. And once again, this is not the end of the story." (page 83) and "The reality appears to be that there were stories being told about Jesus for a very long time not just before our surviving Gospels but even before their sources had been produced. If scholars are right that Q and the core of the Gospel of Thomas, to pick just two examples, do date from the 50s, and that they were based on oral traditions that had already been in circulation for a long time, how far back do these traditions go? Anyone who thinks that Jesus existed has no problem answering the question: they ultimately go back to things Jesus said and did while he was engaged in his public ministry, say, around the year 29 or 30. But even anyone who just wonders if Jesus existed has to assume that there were stories being told about him in the 30s and 40s. For one thing, as we will see in the next chapter, how else would someone like Paul have known to persecute the Christians, if Christians didn’t exist? And how could they exist if they didn’t know anything about Jesus?" (page 85)"
  67. ^ Casey 2010, p. 63-64.
  68. ^ Ehrman 2012, pp. 88–91.
  69. ^ Green, Joel B. (2013). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.). IVP Academic. p. 541. ISBN 978-0830824564.
  70. ^ Edward Adams in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (2001) ISBN 0521796784 pp. 94–96.
  71. ^ Eddy & Boyd 2007, p. 202.
  72. ^ Tuckett 2001, pp. 122–126.
  73. ^ Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (2003) ISBN 0802839312 p. 143
  74. ^ Jesus Christ in History and Scripture by Edgar V. McKnight (1999) ISBN 0865546770 p. 38
  75. ^ Jesus according to Paul by Victor Paul Furnish (1994) ISBN 0521458242 pp. 19–20
  76. ^ Galatians 1:19
  77. ^ Murphy, Caherine M. (2007). The Historical Jesus For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 140. ISBN 978-0470167854.
  78. ^ a b Ehrman 2012, pp. 145–146: "In about the year 36, Paul went to Jerusalem to confer with Peter (Galatians 1:18–20). Paul spent fifteen days there. He may not have gone only or even principally to get a rundown on what Jesus said and did during his public ministry. It is plausible, in fact, that Paul wanted to strategize with Peter, as the leader (or one of the leaders) among the Jerusalem Christians, about Paul's own missionary activities, not among the Jews (Peter's concern) but among the Gentiles (Paul's). This was the reason stated for Paul's second visit to see Peter and the others fourteen years later, according to Galatians 2:1–10. But it defies belief that Paul would have spent over two weeks with Jesus's closest companion and not learned something about him—for example, that he lived. Even more telling is the much-noted fact that Paul claims that he met with, and therefore personally knew, Jesus's own brother James. It is true that Paul calls him the "brother of the Lord," not "the brother of Jesus." But that means very little since Paul typically calls Jesus the Lord and rarely uses the name Jesus (without adding "Christ" or other titles). 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."
  79. ^ Galatians 2:9
  80. ^ Tuckett 2001, pp. 121–125.
  81. ^ Bruce David Chilton; Craig Alan Evans (1998). Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. BRILL. pp. 460–470. ISBN 978-90-04-11142-4. Archived from the original on 4 October 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2016.
  82. ^ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg (2009) ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pp. 431–436
  83. ^ Van Voorst 2000, pp. 39–53.
  84. ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 978-90-232-2653-6.
  85. ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. B&H Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3.
  86. ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pp. 662–663
  87. ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman (1965), ISBN 0674995023 p. 496
  88. ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 83.
  89. ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the Essential Works: A Condensation of Jewish Antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pp. 284–285
  90. ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, p. 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996) ISBN 0-521-21043-7
  91. ^ Eddy & Boyd 2007, pp. 179–180.
  92. ^ Evans 2001, p. 42.
  93. ^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard (2001) ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343
  94. ^ Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond (2004) ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi
  95. ^ a b Jesus and the Politics of his Day by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (1985) ISBN 0521313449 p. 393
  96. ^ In Jesus: The Complete Guide edited by J. L. Houlden (8 Feb 2006) ISBN 082648011X pp. 693–694
  97. ^ Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (24 Aug 2009) ISBN 0691143188 pp. 9, 141
  98. ^ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg (1 Aug 2009) ISBN 0805444823 p. 280
  99. ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament ISBN 0-8054-4365-7. pp. 107–109
  100. ^ Dunn 2003, p. 339 James Dunn states of "baptism and crucifixion", these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent"..
  101. ^ Crossan 1994, p. 45. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
  102. ^ John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 pp. 126–128
  103. ^ a b Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 p. 47
  104. ^ Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 ISBN 0664258425 pp. 31–32
  105. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 207.
  106. ^ Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.
  107. ^ Ehrman (2012, pp. 13)

Sources

(1991), v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, ISBN 0385264259
(1994), v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, ISBN 0385469926
(2001), v. 3, Companions and Competitors, ISBN 0385469934
(2009), v. 4, Law and Love, ISBN 978-0300140965
  1. ^ Byrskog, Samuel (2011). "The Historicity of Jesus: How do we now that Jesus existed?". Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Volume 3). Brill. pp. 2183–2212. ISBN 9004163727.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&oldid=1183896201"