Changes

The sources for the historical existence of Jesus are many.  First, there are four biographies – the [[gospel]]s 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 is also a collection of letters by [[Saint Paul]], who wrote from the late 40s to the mid 60s (when he was martyred).  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 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 [[Early Church Fathers|Apostolic Fathers]].  Jesus’ earthly life was even mentioned by some pseudo-Christian and non-Christian writings, including the Romano-Jewish historian [[Josephus|Josephus Flavius]] – all to be discussed below.

The sources for the historical existence of Jesus are many.  First, there are four biographies – the [[gospel]]s 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 is also a collection of letters by [[Saint Paul]], who wrote from the late 40s to the mid 60s (when he was martyred).  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 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 [[Early Church Fathers|Apostolic Fathers]].  Jesus’ earthly life was even mentioned by some pseudo-Christian and non-Christian writings, including the Romano-Jewish historian [[Josephus|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.”<ref>quoted by [[Lee Strobel]], ''The Case for Christ'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 31.</ref>  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.

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.”<ref>quoted by [[Lee Strobel]], ''The Case for Christ'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 31.</ref>  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.

=== Holy Gospels ===

=== Holy Gospels ===

The four biographies of the life of Jesus written during the first century A.D. are known as the Gospels of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], and [[Gospel of John|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.   

The four biographies of the life of Jesus written during the first century A.D. are known as the Gospels of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], and [[Gospel of John|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 [[St. Paul|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 [[John the Apostle|‘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.

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 [[St. Paul|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 [[John the Apostle|‘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.<ref>[http://jesusevidences.com/ntgospelsbiographies.php Quotations of academics on genre of the Gospels]</ref> In fact, the great scholar [[Craig Keener]] states the following relating to the genre that the four Gospel accounts were written under;

Academics have also affirmed that the Gospels were written under the genre of ancient biography.<ref>[http://jesusevidences.com/ntgospelsbiographies.php Quotations of academics on genre of the Gospels]</ref> In fact, the great scholar [[Craig Keener]] states the following relating to the genre that the four Gospel accounts were written under;

===Pauline Epistles===

===Pauline Epistles===

A collection of letters written by Saint Paul also discuss Jesus.  Paul was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus until after the resurrection, but was a contemporary of the life of Jesus, and besides whatever knowledge the Lord gave to him in his glorified state, Paul also knew Jesus’ disciples, especially Saint Peter.  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.

A collection of letters written by Saint Paul also discuss Jesus.  Paul was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus until after the resurrection, but was a contemporary of the life of Jesus, and besides whatever knowledge the Lord gave to him in his glorified state, Paul also knew Jesus’ disciples, especially Saint Peter.  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.

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 refer to specific, earthly events, that are unknown in ancient Judaic literature to have any precedence in celestial or supernatural regions. For example, we are told by Paul that Jesus was born of a women on Earth under the law which only applies to humans (Galatians 4:4), he tells us that Jesus was killed by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23), that He was executed by earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8), that He was buried (1 Corinthians 15:4). 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.

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 refer to specific, earthly events, that are unknown in ancient Judaic literature to have any precedence in celestial or supernatural regions. For example, we are told by Paul that Jesus was born of a women on Earth under the law which only applies to humans (Galatians 4:4), he tells us that Jesus was killed by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23), that He was executed by earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8), that He was buried (1 Corinthians 15:4). 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.

=== Ancient Creeds ===

=== 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.

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.<ref>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</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref>  Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"<ref>Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in ''Tradition and Life in the Church'' (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44</ref> whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony.  It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."<ref>Archibald Hunter, ''Works and Words of Jesus'' (1973) p. 100</ref>

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.<ref>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</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref>  Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"<ref>Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in ''Tradition and Life in the Church'' (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44</ref> whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony.  It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."<ref>Archibald Hunter, ''Works and Words of Jesus'' (1973) p. 100</ref>

=== Early Church Fathers ===

=== Early 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:

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 &mdash; [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.''<ref>translation by Richard Bauckham in his ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-16.</ref>

: ''…if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders &mdash; [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.''<ref>translation by Richard Bauckham in his ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-16.</ref>

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.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-21.</ref>  Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, stated:

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.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-21.</ref>  Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, stated:

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.<ref>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</ref>  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.<ref>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.</ref>  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."<ref>G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus'' p. 193</ref>  And there are even a few scholars who support the authenticity of the entire passage.<ref>Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21</ref>   

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.<ref>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</ref>  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.<ref>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.</ref>  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."<ref>G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus'' p. 193</ref>  And there are even a few scholars who support the authenticity of the entire passage.<ref>Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21</ref>   

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.

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 ====

==== (lost) Acts of Pilate ====

==== (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".<ref>Justin Martyr, ''First Apology'' 48</ref> 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.<ref>see Tertullian, ''Apology'' V.</ref>  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.   

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".<ref>Justin Martyr, ''First Apology'' 48</ref> 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.<ref>see Tertullian, ''Apology'' V.</ref>  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.<ref>For a discussion, see Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'', p. 14</ref>  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.

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.<ref>For a discussion, see Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'', p. 14</ref>  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.

:''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.''<ref>''The Babylonian Talmud'', translated I. Epstein (London: Soncio, 1935), vol. 3, ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, p. 281</ref>

:''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.''<ref>''The Babylonian Talmud'', translated I. Epstein (London: Soncio, 1935), vol. 3, ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, p. 281</ref>

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.

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.

== Proponents of the Myth argument ==

== Proponents of the Myth argument ==