Changes

[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]

[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''[[Christ]] on the [[Cross]]'' by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]

The '''historicity of Jesus''' focuses on whether [[Jesus Christ]] existed as a real [[History|historical]] person, or whether he is simply a result of [[myth]]ological 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.<ref name="be">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."</ref> This consensus is acknowledged by non-Christian scholars, for example, [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] scholars,<ref name="be" /> Jewish scholars,<ref>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."</ref> and Christ myth proponents as well.<ref>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."</ref>

The '''historicity of Jesus''' focuses on whether [[Jesus Christ]] existed as a real [[History|historical]] person, or whether he is simply a result of [[myth]]ological 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.<ref name="be">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."</ref> This consensus is acknowledged by non-Christian scholars, for example, [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] scholars,<ref name="be" /> Jewish scholars,<ref>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."</ref> and Christ myth proponents as well.<ref>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."</ref>

The existence of Jesus is well supported with more than 14 independent sources, many of which are from the first century AD from both supporters and opponents of Christianity.<ref>Ken Dark. 2023. Archaeology of Jesus' Nazareth. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192865397. Pages 150-152</ref> 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.<ref name="beb">Bart Ehrman. 2016. Bart Ehrman Blog. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230411080649/https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/ 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.”</ref>

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.<ref>Ken Dark. 2023. Archaeology of Jesus' Nazareth. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192865397. Pages 150-152</ref> 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.<ref name="beb">Bart Ehrman. 2016. Bart Ehrman Blog. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230411080649/https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/ 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.”</ref>

The earliest sources on Jesus that have survived are the letters from the apostle Paul who 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.<ref name="be1">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."</ref> The crucifixion occurred around the early 30s AD, so he knew such eyewitnesses very close to the time Jesus was crucified.<ref>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.</ref> 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 [https://www.conservapedia.com/Historicity_of_Jesus#Paul.27s_direct_knowledge_of_the_life_and_teachings_of_Jesus Table 1] below).<ref name="cb">Craig Blomberg. 2022. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Third Edition). B&H Academic. ISBN 9781087753157. pages 601-605</ref>     

The earliest sources on Jesus that have survived are the letters from the apostle Paul who 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.<ref name="be1">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."</ref> The crucifixion occurred around the early 30s AD, so he knew such eyewitnesses very close to the time Jesus was crucified.<ref>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.</ref> 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 [https://www.conservapedia.com/Historicity_of_Jesus#Paul.27s_direct_knowledge_of_the_life_and_teachings_of_Jesus Table 1] below).<ref name="cb">Craig Blomberg. 2022. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Third Edition). B&H Academic. ISBN 9781087753157. pages 601-605</ref>     

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.<ref>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.”</ref> Internal evidence indicates that earlier independent sources than the gospels existed prior to the four Gospels being written.<ref name="beb" />  

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.<ref>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.”</ref> Internal evidence indicates that earlier independent sources than the gospels existed prior to the four Gospels being written.<ref name="beb" />  

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).  

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.<ref name="schm">Thomas Schmidt. 2025. [https://watermark02.silverchair.com/isbn-9780192866783.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAzMwggMvBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggMgMIIDHAIBADCCAxUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMcFXNpp1zqB2-ZEExAgEQgIIC5iDxCDkedhmvrWMa9PKdwrZKXpB6prskV-GQkhjFFKpszJJ-hBmFvf1GlfWeGF__iCT25QK8PArBGeGJqthxVGT1VGQPA544dZOPD_4UP7I9-tkRBfXTYAV64-na0r8kQfODp-Y7LZYIpfmlP6bjyfLWQvT0InkswDAu_er8eT4fDIjr_frqAmHieGIJ1K49kPbHGNDitQRSNGZyScAzaA8B8cNZUDVzFlCpEM9OekUHY2mHbiRFWcTJySxCtjfE96jiGikzaULs-vxVHCZY3e15ocOftVXyQnNdfa-6JKR3NOxQCLc1Q3CLKmkHCdQrnI03xGmItBXBOQ9FhBr7hjyeqYsSSIGdaTywqh3f9TGjQe4n3OTvTScw2CWHE35lsWFdNPO8SCsX7cDO_9-glr9zYGKt-5pPN4JbVzxxBnBheANG_Mwo0Sf78jqYf-3l8pZ5ITIHrcxSlFKxZli4zePv107365IXnEWKyjVSSNL88c_3hRAnc_F--VGIMZ8eHa5lvB4gHKj5at1W-JBaVOljDoamX9Rze-600I-q1q00tBIEsWVl1wcjQGvQSBWmw7KLymrzdKCFRqurTmpGH_n0RItvpKUS5HdiKL9DqDzlxpzJtKxqDj9ldSbN9lmH1v6CWMfMRdPaUPH4Uywdq05i-c_b_qnHy_o1XKJk0lgaIiFy_CBsiDDGqu4VTkohceusjRQLHAwTPfVzM5L_cG963qKpDLdHyij2YdcMTWUidIyt2EOntnffn6uQwgWvtS2MlRCbhc4CfIW8W_xa_xLOGdZEXn1n7HS5tvdH0dohSLbFlyTeuTHIXtCdQ4UDoHW4ia7n1Ih9-bNtD3bBAF-6C8JVChiZJkBOTxHbcyiPJHWgqCkFVUgjlH81bb6PamgDqHpztJfYGWcpRIFFu6ZsqL1DFMMnOCxpgzdkjOQNIFNrL7hs3WCK47rtwmJOFx6OsLSlEeo_jZ_v3ID53V-i6ffQvCQ Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ] (free ebook). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191957697. pages 145–147.</ref> 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.<ref name="schm" /> 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.<ref name="schm" /> 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.   

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.<ref name="schm">Thomas Schmidt. 2025. [https://watermark02.silverchair.com/isbn-9780192866783.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAzMwggMvBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggMgMIIDHAIBADCCAxUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMcFXNpp1zqB2-ZEExAgEQgIIC5iDxCDkedhmvrWMa9PKdwrZKXpB6prskV-GQkhjFFKpszJJ-hBmFvf1GlfWeGF__iCT25QK8PArBGeGJqthxVGT1VGQPA544dZOPD_4UP7I9-tkRBfXTYAV64-na0r8kQfODp-Y7LZYIpfmlP6bjyfLWQvT0InkswDAu_er8eT4fDIjr_frqAmHieGIJ1K49kPbHGNDitQRSNGZyScAzaA8B8cNZUDVzFlCpEM9OekUHY2mHbiRFWcTJySxCtjfE96jiGikzaULs-vxVHCZY3e15ocOftVXyQnNdfa-6JKR3NOxQCLc1Q3CLKmkHCdQrnI03xGmItBXBOQ9FhBr7hjyeqYsSSIGdaTywqh3f9TGjQe4n3OTvTScw2CWHE35lsWFdNPO8SCsX7cDO_9-glr9zYGKt-5pPN4JbVzxxBnBheANG_Mwo0Sf78jqYf-3l8pZ5ITIHrcxSlFKxZli4zePv107365IXnEWKyjVSSNL88c_3hRAnc_F--VGIMZ8eHa5lvB4gHKj5at1W-JBaVOljDoamX9Rze-600I-q1q00tBIEsWVl1wcjQGvQSBWmw7KLymrzdKCFRqurTmpGH_n0RItvpKUS5HdiKL9DqDzlxpzJtKxqDj9ldSbN9lmH1v6CWMfMRdPaUPH4Uywdq05i-c_b_qnHy_o1XKJk0lgaIiFy_CBsiDDGqu4VTkohceusjRQLHAwTPfVzM5L_cG963qKpDLdHyij2YdcMTWUidIyt2EOntnffn6uQwgWvtS2MlRCbhc4CfIW8W_xa_xLOGdZEXn1n7HS5tvdH0dohSLbFlyTeuTHIXtCdQ4UDoHW4ia7n1Ih9-bNtD3bBAF-6C8JVChiZJkBOTxHbcyiPJHWgqCkFVUgjlH81bb6PamgDqHpztJfYGWcpRIFFu6ZsqL1DFMMnOCxpgzdkjOQNIFNrL7hs3WCK47rtwmJOFx6OsLSlEeo_jZ_v3ID53V-i6ffQvCQ Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ] (free ebook). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191957697. pages 145–147.</ref> 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.<ref name="schm" /> 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.<ref name="schm" /> 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.<ref>Christopher Hansen. 2022. "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2222582X.2021.2001667 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."</ref> 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.<ref name="be" /> 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.<ref>George A. Wells. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20210630131437/https://secularhumanism.org/2012/06/cont-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus-and-early-christian-thinking/ 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."</ref> 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.<ref>Daniel Gullotta. 2017. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20250124073547/https://scapegoatshadows.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2b22b-17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts.pdf 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."</ref><ref name="be2">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."</ref><ref>Bill Cooke. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20240823022402/https://secularhumanism.org/2024/07/five-challenges-to-christ-myth-theorists/#cooke-bill 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.”</ref>  

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.<ref>Christopher Hansen. 2022. "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2222582X.2021.2001667 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."</ref> 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.<ref name="be" /> 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.<ref>George A. Wells. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20210630131437/https://secularhumanism.org/2012/06/cont-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus-and-early-christian-thinking/ 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."</ref> 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.<ref>Daniel Gullotta. 2017."[https://web.archive.org/web/20250124073547/https://scapegoatshadows.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2b22b-17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts.pdf 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."</ref><ref name="be2">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."</ref><ref>Bill Cooke. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20240823022402/https://secularhumanism.org/2024/07/five-challenges-to-christ-myth-theorists/#cooke-bill 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.”</ref>  

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)."<ref>[https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1527-false-ideas-about-jesus-christ False Ideas About Jesus Christ] by Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier</ref>

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)."<ref>[https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1527-false-ideas-about-jesus-christ False Ideas About Jesus Christ] by Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier</ref>

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

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

=== Overview ===

=== Overview ===

[[File:The Conversion of St Paul by Nicolas-Bernard Lepicie, 1767.JPG|thumbnail|The conversion of the [[Saint Paul|Apostle Paul]].]]

[[File:The Conversion of St Paul by Nicolas-Bernard Lepicie, 1767.JPG|thumbnail|The conversion of the [[Saint Paul|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.<ref name="be1" />  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 [[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 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 Christianity|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. 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.<ref name="be1" />  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 [[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 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 Christianity|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.

===Pauline Epistles===

===Pauline Epistles===

The collection of letters written by Saint Paul discuss 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.<ref name="be1" /> 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.

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.<ref name="be1" /> 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====

====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 refer to specific, earthly events, that are unknown in ancient Judaic literature to have any precedence in celestial or supernatural regions.  

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:<ref name="cb" />

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:<ref name="cb" />