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 non-existence of Jesus views have been considered fringe for more than 200 years and are considered refuted among ancient historians.<ref>Robert Van Voorst. 2000. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689. page 16."The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.</ref> <ref>Robert Van Voorst. 2003. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689. page 16."The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.</ref>Robert Van Voorst Robert. 2003. "Nonexistence Hypothesis". Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 9781576078563."The argument that Jesus never existed, but was invented by the Christian movement around the year 100, goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born. Although mainstream scholarship has not paid attention to this argument in recent decades, debate on the existence of Jesus has been on the fringes of scholarship and popular religious discussion for more than two centuries.</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 non-existence of Jesus views have been considered fringe for more than 200 years and are considered refuted among ancient historians.<ref>Robert Van Voorst. 2000. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802843689. page 16."The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.</ref><ref>Robert Van Voorst Robert. 2003. "Nonexistence Hypothesis". Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 9781576078563."The argument that Jesus never existed, but was invented by the Christian movement around the year 100, goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born. Although mainstream scholarship has not paid attention to this argument in recent decades, debate on the existence of Jesus has been on the fringes of scholarship and popular religious discussion for more than two centuries.</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 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>