Changes

== Sources ==

== Sources ==

=== Overview ===

=== Overview ===

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 [[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.

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 independent 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;

By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” he presumably refers to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 53l.</ref>

By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” he presumably refers to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 53l.</ref>

Other early Christian texts mention Jesus in detail.  The Didache, for example, is a collection of teachings based on the apostolic witness, which itself was based on Jesus’ doctrine.  Many of these texts, however, are too late (dating to the second half of the second century) to be used as proper historical sources, at least not without much caution, and they cannot establish the same claim to eyewitness authority as can the other writings mentioned above.

Other early Christian texts mention Jesus is in detail.  The Didache, for example, is a collection of teachings based on the apostolic witness, which itself was based on Jesus’ doctrine.  Many of these texts, however, are too late (dating to the second half of the second century) to be used as proper historical sources, at least not without much caution, and they cannot establish the same claim to eyewitness authority as can the other writings mentioned above.

''See also'' [[Diatessaron]] and [[Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)]].

''See also'' [[Diatessaron]] and [[Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)]].

An early [[heretical]] section known as [[gnosticism]] produced texts that purported to contain information about Jesus, generally his (enigmatic) sayings.  They are very dubious sources, dating to the second half of the second century at the earliest, and lacking a historical connection to the disciples (despite their claims).  They are perhaps most useful in reminding us of how good the earlier (and orthodox) gospels are, by presenting us with an example of what an inaccurate source concerning Jesus really looks like.  Furthermore, the gnostic texts show a general disinterest in the historical details of Jesus’ life, and they fail to present a standard historical narrative, giving only a list of sayings framed in the structure of an alleged secret revelation.

An early [[heretical]] section known as [[gnosticism]] produced texts that purported to contain information about Jesus, generally his (enigmatic) sayings.  They are very dubious sources, dating to the second half of the second century at the earliest, and lacking a historical connection to the disciples (despite their claims).  They are perhaps most useful in reminding us of how good the earlier (and orthodox) gospels are, by presenting us with an example of what an inaccurate source concerning Jesus really looks like.  Furthermore, the gnostic texts show a general disinterest in the historical details of Jesus’ life, and they fail to present a standard historical narrative, giving only a list of sayings framed in the structure of an alleged secret revelation.

Nonetheless, certain [[Gnostic]] texts do mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have, with great caution, sought to glean certain bits of information about Jesus from them.<ref>James M. Robinson, ed., ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) and especially his essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, ''Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity'' (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986); R. E. Brown, "The Christians Who Lost Out" in ''The New York Times Book Review'', 20 January 1980 p. 3; Koester in Robinson, ''Nag Hammadi in English'', vol. 2 pp. 4, 47, 68, 150-154, 180.</ref>  The relevance for us is not so much the conclusions of these scholars, but the fact that, in a minimal and contingent way, they help dispel the notion that Jesus never existed as a historical figure.  Examples of such texts include the ''Gospel of Truth'', ''Treatise on Resurrection'', and the ''Apocryphon of John'', the latter of which opens with the following:

Nonetheless, certain [[Gnostic]] texts do mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have, with great caution, sought to glean certain bits of information about Jesus from them.<ref>James M. Robinson, ed., ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) and especially his essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, ''Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity'' (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986); R. E. Brown, "The Christians Who Lost Out" in ''The New York Times Book Review'', 20 January 1980 p. 3; Koester in Robinson, ''Nag Hammadi in English'', vol. 2 pp. 4, 47, 68, 150-154, 180.</ref>  The relevance for us in not so much the conclusions of these scholars, but the fact that, in a minimal and contingent way, they help dispel the notion that Jesus never existed as a historical figure.  Examples of such texts include the ''Gospel of Truth'', ''Treatise on Resurrection'', and the ''Apocryphon of John'', the latter of which opens with the following:

: ''It happened one day when John, the brother of James – who are sons of Zebedee – went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?"  And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came."  The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers."''<ref>''Apocryphon of John'' 1:5-17</ref>

: ''It happened one day when John, the brother of James – who are sons of Zebedee – went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?"  And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came."  The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers."''<ref>''Apocryphon of John'' 1:5-17</ref>

=== Jewish records ===

=== Jewish records ===

Rabbi Akiba, before his death in A. D. 135, recorded oral traditions, especially of a legal nature, in what is known as the [[Mishnah]].  This, together with commentaries called the “Gemaras”, constitute the Talmud.  ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

Rabbi Akiba, before his death in A. D. 135, recorded oral traditions, especially of a legal nature, in what is known as the Mishnah.  This, together with commentaries called the “Gemaras”, constitute the Talmud.  ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

:''On 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 ==

{{See also|Christ Myth Theory}}

{{See also|Christ Myth Theory}}

A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination.  These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German, who has subsequently abandoned this position after reading the works of the renowned J.D.G. Dunn), Earl Doherty (who only holds a bachelor's degree and once wrote a self-published booklet on the subject), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Richard Carrier (who, although he has a doctoral degree, failed to find an academic position in an institution of higher learning and is therefore currently a blogger), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what is true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars.  Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced.  For example, in their work ''The Jesus Mysteries'', Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “[[Orphic mysteries|Orpheus]] crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.<ref>"In his review of this book in ''Gnomon'', 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (''AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde'', 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, ''Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement'', 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html Blog]</ref>  

A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination.  These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German, who has subsequently abandoned this position after reading the works of the renowned J.D.G. Dunn), Earl Doherty (who only holds a bachelor's degree and once wrote a self-published booklet on the subject), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Richard Carrier (who, although he has a doctoral degree, failed to find an academic position in an institution of higher learning and is therefore currently a blogger), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what it true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars.  Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced.  For example, in their work ''The Jesus Mysteries'', Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “[[Orphic mysteries|Orpheus]] crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.<ref>"In his review of this book in ''Gnomon'', 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (''AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde'', 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, ''Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement'', 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html Blog]</ref>  

The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community.  Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods:

The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community.  Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods:

Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst:

Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst:

:''The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.''<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.</ref>

:''The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.''<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.</ref>

== Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed ==

== Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed ==

Historical illiteracy and an ignorance of [[historiography]] is widespread among [[atheism|atheists]] (see: [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]).

Historical illiteracy and an ignorance of [[historiography]] is widespread among [[atheism|atheists]] (see: [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]).

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim that Jesus never existed.

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed.

In an article entitled ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'', Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

In an article entitled ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'', Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

==Notes==

==Notes==