Changes

The '''historicity of Jesus''' focuses on whether [[Jesus]] existed as a real historical person, or whether he is simply a mythological imagination.  There has recently been a liberal move in academia in the last century to discredit the Truth of the Bible and God's word and the attacks of whether or not Jesus really existed fit into this onslaught. This article will show that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming.  In other words, for someone to argue that Jesus never existed (and thus is merely a myth) is to place himself against not only the field of scholarship and the historical record, but even against reason and common sense.  

The '''historicity of Jesus''' focuses on whether [[Jesus]] existed as a real historical person, or whether he is simply a mythological imagination.  This article will show that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming.  In other words, for someone to argue that Jesus never existed (and thus is merely a myth) is to place himself against not only the field of scholarship and the historical record, but even against reason and common sense.

== Sources ==

== Sources ==

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>   

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.

 

Critics say that because the Bible and other religious sources have events such as a talking serpent and a talking donkey, this should be cause for the rest of the text to be called into question, but this is faulty logic. First off, many view these events as parables that were never meant to be literally true by the original authors, but even if these events were supposed to be literal and it turned out they never happened, this does not automatically mean that every other thing in the text is also false.

 

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 ===