Historicity of Jesus

This article is about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. For the historical reconstructions of the life of Jesus, see Historical Jesus. For the view that Jesus may be a mythical figure, see Christ myth theory.

The question of the historicity of Jesus deals with the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as a historical figure, approximately where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events. In contrast, the study of the historical Jesus goes beyond the question of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed. However, scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accept that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.

Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels to determine the historicity of Jesus. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Existence and chronology

Existence and location

See also: Historical Jesus

Judaea and Galilee during the first century.

The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.

Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars. Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.

Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. However, in a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine stated: "Beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish' rarely does scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means."

Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea. The Talmud refers to "Jesus the Nazarene" several times and scholars such as Andreas Kostenberger and Robert Van Voorst hold that some of these references are to Jesus. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian gospels portray it as an insignificant village, John 1:46 asking "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Craig S. Keener states that it is rarely disputed that Jesus was from Nazareth, an obscure small village not worthy of invention. Gerd Theissen concurs with that conclusion.

The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language. Most scholars agree that during the early part of the first century, Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all women in Galilee and Judae. Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.

Most scholars reject that there is any evidence that an adult Jesus traveled or studied outside Galilee and Judea. Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value".

Basic historical facts

The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima, now at the Israel Museum

The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus. In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.

However, regardless of the scholarly disagreements on the reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

Beyond these two key events, scholars attribute levels of certainty to other episodes, e.g. E.P. Sanders and separately Craig A. Evans go further and state that there are two other incidents in the life of Jesus can be historical, one that Jesus called disciples, the other that he caused a controversy at the Temple. This extended view assumes that there are 8 elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, 4 episodes in the life of Jesus and 4 facts about him and his followers, namely:

• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.

• Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted.

But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, and beyond the two basic facts of baptism and crucifixion, scholarly consensus begins to dilute. For instance, N. T. Wright accepts that there were twelve disciples, but holds that the list of their names can not be determined with certainty, while John Dominic Crossan disagrees with Wright, and believes that Jesus did not call disciples and had an "open to all" egalitarian approach, imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms. On the other hand John P. Meier sees the calling of disciples a natural consequence of the information available about Jesus.

A bronze prutah minted by Pontius Pilate

Although there is disagreement about issues such as the calling of disciples, the agreement on crucifixion is very widespread, and most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story. Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

The existence of John the Baptist within the same time frame as Jesus, and his eventual execution by Herod Antipas is attested to by first century historian Josephus and the overwhelming majority of modern scholars view Josephus' accounts of the activities of John the Baptist as authentic. One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the Baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis. The four gospels are not the only references to the baptisms performed by John and in Acts 10:37-38, the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached". Another argument used in favour of the historicity of the baptism is that multiple accounts refer to it, usually called the criterion of multiple attestation. Technically, multiple attestation does not guarantee authenticity, but only determines antiquity. However, for most scholars, together with the criterion of embarrassment it lends credibility to the baptism of Jesus by John being a historical event.

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 AD.

Chronology

Main article: Chronology of Jesus

The Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece, where the Delphi Inscription was discovered in the 20th century, helping confirm the chronology of Paul.

Diverse approaches have been used to estimate the chronology of Jesus, ranging from the comparison of the accounts in the Christian gospels with Roman and Jewish sources regarding facts such as the marriage of Herodias and separately the Jerusalem Temple, to correlation with the well established chronology of Paul of Tarsus, to astronomical analysis based on an approach first suggested by Isaac Newton.

Two independent approaches can be used to estimate the year of birth of Jesus, one based on the nativity accounts in the gospels, the other by working backwards from the date of the start of his ministry. Most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.

Three independent approaches to estimate the dates of the ministry of Jesus (when he started calling disciples, generally considered to be after his baptism) and are: first, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, second: the date of the building of the Jerusalem Temple and third, the date of the death of John the Baptist. Scholars generally estimate that the ministry of Jesus began around AD 27-29 and lasted at least one year, and perhaps three years, or more.

At least four distinct approaches have been used to estimate the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. One approach uses the attestations of non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. Both Josephus, writing in Antiquities of the Jews (c. AD 93), and the early 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus, writing in The Annals (c. AD 116), state that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus. A separate approach uses the reign of Herod Antipas. Another method works backwards from the historically well established trial of Apostle Paul in Achaea to estimate the date of his conversion. Two independent astronomical methods have also been used, suggesting the same date, i.e. Friday, April 3, AD 33. Scholars generally agree that Jesus died AD 30-36.

Josephus provides a useful link between the chronology of the ministry of Jesus and his death. Most modern scholars also view Josephus' account (in Antiquities 18.5.2) of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, and the marriage of Herod and Herodias to be authentic. Given that John the Baptist was executed before the defeat of Herod by Aretas IV of Nabatea in the AD 36, and based on the scholarly estimates for the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias AD 28-35, Josephus establishes a key connection between the time frame of the ministry of Jesus and his execution.

The Pauline letters, which were written before the Christian gospels, also shed light on the chronology of Jesus. The estimation of the date of the conversion of Paul places the death of Jesus before this conversion, which is estimated at around AD 33-36. The estimation of the year of Paul's conversion relies on a series of calculations working backwards from the well established date of his trial before Gallio (who was mentioned in the Delphi Inscription) in Achaea Greece (Acts 18:12-17) AD 51-52, the meeting of Priscilla and Aquila which were expelled from Rome about AD 49 and the 14-year period before returning to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1. Scholars generally agree that this expulsion from Rome is likely the same as that reported by Suetonius in Claudius 25 in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars further confirming the consistency of the Pauline-based chronology.

Myth theory

Main article: Christ myth theory

David Strauss, the 19th century founder of Christ myth theory.

The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels. Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the notion that Jesus never existed has little scholarly support, and although some modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority; virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe that his existence can be established.

The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin-Volney and Charles Dupuis. Although in Dialogue with Trypho, the second century Christian writer Justin Martyr wrote of a discussion about "Christ" with Trypho, most scholars agree that Trypho is a fictional character invented by Justin for his literary apologetic goals.

In 1835, the methodical writings of David Friedrich Strauss caused an uproar in Europe, and Strauss became known as the founder of Christ myth theory, his approach having been influenced by the epistemological views of Leibniz and Spinoza. Strauss did not deny the existence of Jesus, but believed that very few facts could be known about him and characterized the miraculous accounts in the gospels as "mythical". By the beginning of the 20th century, Arthur Drews, William B. Smith and John M. Robertson became the most recognized proponents of the Christ myth theory. In the 20th century, scholars such as professor of German language G. A. Wells, Swedish professor of English language Alvar Ellegård, and philosopher and theologian Robert M. Price produced a number of arguments to support the Christ myth theory.

One element of the criticism presented by Jesus myth theorists are arguments from silence that rely on the lack of first century, non-Christian sources about Jesus. An example is that in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 AD), Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate but did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty. Van Voorst states that in the year 40 Christians were not a significant group and Philo never mentions them at all, so he likely had no need to mention their founder. Evans states that if Christianity had not survived beyond the first century, Jews would not have even bothered to mention it in the Midrash.

Virtually all scholars accept the existence of Jesus, but differ on the accuracy of the details of his life within the biblical narratives. Some elements of the Christ myth theory are still debated in the 21st century, with Graham Stanton stating in 2002 that the most thorough analysis of the theory had been by George Albert Wells. But Wells' book Did Jesus Exist? was criticized by James D.G. Dunn in his book The Evidence for Jesus. Wells then changed his views regarding the existence of Jesus towards the end of the 20th century - while he used to argue that there was no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he later modified his position, and in his later book The Jesus Myth accepted the possible existence of Jesus based on historical sources, although still disputing the gospel portrayals of his life. Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".

Methods of research

See also: Quest for the historical Jesus

Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus

While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.

The first Quest which started in 1778 was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948. Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends. Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns. Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism. This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.

At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s. The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.

Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921. The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him. The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged. The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.

The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced. This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves. The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988. This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in terms of two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.

Non-Christian sources

Key sources

Josephus

Main article: Josephus on Jesus

A page from a 1466 copy of Antiquities of the Jews

The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.

Of the two passages the James passage in Book 20 is used by scholars to support the existence of Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum in Book 18 his crucifixion. Josephus' James passage not only attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person but that some of his contemporaries considered him the Messiah.

The passage deals with the death of "James the brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem, and given that works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, Josephus clarifies that this Jesus was the one "who was called Christ". Louis Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities. Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence, e.g. that the Antiquities covers a longer time period and that during the 20 year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars (c. 70 AD) and Antiquities (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the Antiquities.

A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the Christian traditions, not differ from them. For an extensive discussion of the scholarly arguments regarding these Josephus passages, see the article Josephus on Jesus.

Tacitus

Main article: Tacitus on Christ

The title page of 1598 edition of the works of Tacitus, kept in Empoli, Italy.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine. William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.

Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator and his writings shows no sympathy towards Christians. Andreas Köstenberger and separately Robert E. Van Voorst state that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe - a conclusion shared by John P. Meier Robert E. Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ". John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." Bart D. Ehrman states: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator. Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.

By the end of the 19th century, there was a hypothesis that the Annals had been fabricated by 15th century Italian author Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459). However, when Giovanni Boccaccio (1313 - 1375) was commissioned by the city of Florence to write Commento di Dante which he completed c. 1374 (before the birth of Poggio Bracciolini), he made clear use of the Annals when he gave an account of Seneca's death directly based on the Tacitus account in Annals book 15. According to Van Voorst the forging of the Annals by Poggio Bracciolini was an extreme hypothesis which never gained a following among modern scholars.

The Talmud

See also: Jesus in the Talmud and Yeshu

A page from Sanhedrin in the 12th century Reuchlin Codex Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud in a few cases includes possible references to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera". Some of these references probably date back to the Tannaitic period (70–200 AD). In some cases, it is not clear if the references are to Jesus, or other people, and scholars continue to debate their historical value, and exactly which references, if any, may be to Jesus.

Robert Van Voorst states that the scarcity of Jewish references to Jesus is not surprising, given that Jesus was not a prominent issue for the Jews during the first century, and after the devastation caused by the Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70, Jewish scholars were focusing on preserving Judaism itself, rather than paying much attention to Christianity.

Van Voorst states that although the question of who was referred to in various points in the Talmud remains subject to debate among scholars, in the case of Sanhedrin 43a (generally considered the most important reference to Jesus in rabbinic literature), Jesus can be confirmed as the subject of the passage, not only from the reference itself, but from the context that surrounds it, and there is little doubt that it refers to the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Christopher M. Tuckett states that if it is accepted that death narrative of Sanhedrin 43a refers to Jesus of Nazareth then it provides evidence of Jesus' existence and execution.

Andreas Kostenberger states that the passage is a Tannaitic reference to the trial and death of Jesus at Passover and is most likely earlier than other references to Jesus in the Talmud. The passage reflects hostility toward Jesus among the rabbis and includes this text:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Peter Schäfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic literature in question are not Tannaitic but from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them. Bart Ehrman and separately Mark Allan Powell state that given that the Talmud references are quite late, they can give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life.

Another reference in early second century Rabbinic literature (Tosefta Hullin II 22) refers to Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama who was bitten by a snake, but was denied healing in the name of Jesus by another Rabbi for it was against the law, and thus died. This passage reflects the attitude of Jesus' early Jewish opponents, i.e. that his miracles were based on evil powers.

Eddy and Boyd, who question the value of several of the Talmudic references state that the significance of the Talmud to historical Jesus research is that it never denies the existence of Jesus, but accuses him of sorcery, thus indirectly confirming his existence. R. T. France and separately Edgar V. McKnight state that the divergence of the Talmud statements from the Christian accounts and their negative nature indicate that they are about a person who existed. Craig Blomberg states that the denial of the existence of Jesus was never part of the Jewish tradition, which instead accused him of being a sorcerer and magician, as also reflected in other sources such as Celsus. Andreas Kostenberger states that the overall conclusion that can be drawn from the references in the Talmud is that Jesus was a historical person whose existence was never denied by the Jewish tradition, which instead focused on discrediting him.

Relevant sources

Mara bar Sarapion

Main article: Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus

Mara (son of Sarapion) was a Stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria. Sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, Mara wrote a letter to his son (also called Sarapion) which may contain an early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

The letter refers to the unjust treatment of "three wise men": the murder of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras, and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. The author explains that in all three cases the wrongdoing resulted in the future punishment of those responsible by God and that when the wise are oppressed, not only does their wisdom triumph in the end, but God punishes their oppressors.

The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be a pagan. Some scholars see the reference to the execution of the "wise king" of the Jews as an early non-Christian reference to Jesus. Criteria that support the non-Christian origin of the letter include the observation that "king of the Jews" was not a Christian title, and that the letter's premise that Jesus lives on based on the wisdom of his teachings is in contrast to the Christian concept that Jesus continues to live through his resurrection.

Scholars such as Robert Van Voorst see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the death of Jesus. Others such as Craig A. Evans see less value in the letter, given its uncertain date, and the possible ambiguity in the reference.

Suetonius

Main article: Suetonius on Christians

A 1540 copy of Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius

The Roman historian Suetonius made references to early Christians and their leader in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars. The references appear in Claudius 25 and Nero 16 which describe the lives of Roman Emperors Claudius and Nero. The Nero 16 passage refers to the abuses by Nero and mentions how he inflicted punishment on Christians - which is generally dated to around AD 64. This passage shows the clear contempt of Suetonius for Christians - the same contempt expressed by Tacitus and Pliny the younger in their writings, but does not refer to Jesus himself.

The earlier passage in Claudius, may include a reference to Jesus, but is subject to debate among scholars. In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

The reference in Claudius 25 involves the agitations in the Jewish community which led to the expulsion of some Jews from Rome by Claudius, and is likely the same event mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). Most historians date this expulsion to around AD 49-50.

Suetonius refers to the leader of the leader of the Christians as Chrestus (a term which may have also been used by Tacitus) and was also common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful. Van Voorst states that there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus here refers to Christ.

However, Suetonius is confused in the passage and assumes that Chrestus was alive at the time of the disturbance and was agitating the Jews in Rome. The confusion of Suetonius weakens the historical value of his reference as a whole, and there is no overall scholarly agreement about its value as a reference to Jesus. However, the confusion of Suetonius also points to the lack of Christian interpolation, for a Christian scribe would not have confused the Jews with Christians. Scholars are divided on the value of the Suetonius' reference. Some scholars such as Craig A. Evans, John Meier and Craig S. Keener see it as a likely reference to Jesus Others such as Stephen Benko and H. Dixon Slingerland see it as having little or no historical value.

Peripheral sources

Main articles: Pliny the Younger on Christians, Lucian on Jesus, and Dead Sea Scrolls

Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus". Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the 1st century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence."

Lucian of Samosata (Born 115 AD) a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer wrote mockingly of the followers of Jesus for their ignorance and credulity. Given that Lucian's understanding of Christian traditions has significant gaps and errors, his writing is unlikely to have been influenced by Christians themselves, and he may provide an independent statement about the crucifixion of Jesus. However, given the nature of the text as satire, Lucian may have embellished the stories he heard and his account can not have a high degree of historical reliability.

The Dead Sea scrolls are first century or older writings that show the language and customs of some Jews of Jesus' time. Scholars such as Henry Chadwick see the similar uses of languages and viewpoints recorded in the New Testament and the Dead Sea scrolls as valuable in showing that the New Testament portrays the first century period that it reports and is not a product of a later period. However, the relationship between the Dead Sea scrolls and the historicity of Jesus has been the subject of highly controversial theories, and although new theories continue to appear, there is no overall scholarly agreement about their impact on the historicity of Jesus, despite the usefulness of the scrolls in shedding light on first century Jewish traditions.

Others

Thallus, of whom very little is known, and none of whose writings survive wrote a history around AD 52, to which Eusebius referred. Julius Africanus, writing c 221, while discussing the crucifixion of Jesus mentioned Thallus and stated that in his third book of History, Thallus talked about the earth shaking and a great darkness which he called an eclipse of the sun. The Thallus reference is the earliest noncanonical reference to a gospel episode, but its usefulness in determining the historicity of Jesus is uncertain.

Celsus writing late in the second century produced the first full scale attack on Christianity. Celsus' document has not survived but in the third century Origen replied to it, and what is known of Celsus' writing is through the responses of Origen. According to Origen, Celsus accused Jesus of being a magician and a sorcerer. While the statements of Celsus may be seen as a confirmation of the miracles of Jesus, they have little historical value, given that the wording of the original writings can not be examined.

The Acts of Pilate is a purported official document from Pontius Pilate (or composed from reports at the praetorium at Jerusalem) reporting events in Judea to Emperor Tiberius, and referring to the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as his miracles. The authenticity of the document is unlikely and there is no historical basis that Roman governors wrote reports about non-citizens who were put to death. Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to refute pagan sources.

Christian sources

Pauline Epistles

Main article: Pauline epistles

Overview

A page from 2 Corinthians in Papyrus 46, c. AD 200

In the context of Christian sources, even if all other texts are ignored, the Pauline epistles can provide some information regarding Jesus, just on their own. This information does not include a narrative of the life of Jesus, but refers to his existence as a person, and a few specific items such as his death by crucifixion. This information comes from those letters of Paul whose authenticity is not disputed.

Of the thirteen letters that bear Paul's name, seven are considered authentic by almost all scholars, and the others are generally considered pseudepigraphic. The 7 undisputed letters (and their approximate dates) are: 1 Thessalonians (c. 51 AD), Philippians (c. 52-54 AD), Philemon (c. 52-54 AD), 1 Corinthians (c. 53-54 AD), Galatians (c. 55 AD), 2 Corinthians (c. 55-56 AD) and Romans (c. 55-58 AD). The authenticity of these letters is accepted by almost all scholars, and they have been referenced and interpreted by early authors such as Origen and Eusebius.

Given that the Pauline epistles are generally dated to AD 50 to AD 60, they are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. These letters were written approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus, around AD 30-36. The letters were written during a time when Paul recorded encounters with the disciples of Jesus, e.g. Galatians 1:18 states that several years after his conversion Paul went to Jerusalem and stayed with Apostle Peter for fifteen days.

The Pauline letters were not intended to provide a narrative of the life of Jesus, but were written as expositions of Christian teachings. In Paul's view, the earthly life of Jesus was of a lower importance than the theology of his death and resurrection,a theme that permeates Pauline writings. However, the Pauline letters clearly indicate that for Paul Jesus was a real person (born of a woman as in Gal 4.4) who had disciples (1 Corinthians 15.5) and who was crucified (as in 1 Corinthians 2.2 and Galatians 3.1). And the letters reflect the general concept within the early Christian Church that Jesus existed and was crucified.

The references by Paul to Jesus do not in themselves prove the existence of Jesus, but they do establish that the existence of Jesus was the accepted norm within the early Christians (including the Christian community in Jerusalem, given the references to collections there) twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus, at a time when those who could have been acquainted with him could still be alive.

Specific references

The seven Pauline epistles that are widely regarded as authentic include the following information that along with other historical elements are used to study the historicity of Jesus:

Early 3rd century copy of Epistle to the Romans from Papyrus 27

• Existence of Jesus: That in Paul's view Jesus existed and was a Jew is based on Galatians 4:4 which states that he was "born of a woman" and Romans 1:3 that he was "born under the law". Some scholars such as Paul Barnett hold that this indicates that Paul had some familiarity with the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, but that is not shared among scholars in general. However, the statement does indicate that Paul had some knowledge of and interest in Jesus' life before his crucifixion.

• Disciples and brothers: 1 Corinthians 15:5 states that Paul knew that Jesus had 12 disciples, and considers Peter as one of them. 1 Corinthians 1:12 further indicates that Peter was known in Corinth before the writing of 1 Corinthians, for it assumes that they were familiar with Cephas/Peter. The statement in 1 Corinthians 15:5 indicates that "the twelve" as a reference to the twelve apostles was a generally known notion within the early Christian Church in Corinth and required no further explanation from Paul. Galatians 1:18 further states that Paul personally knew Peter and stayed with him in Jerusalem for fifteen days, about three years after his conversion. It also implies that Peter was already known to the Galatians and required no introduction. 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Galatians 1:19 state that Jesus had brothers, one being called James.

• Betrayal and rituals: That Jesus was betrayed and established some traditions such as the Eucharist are derived from 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 which states: "The Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.".

• Crucifixion: The Pauline letters include several references to the crucifixion of Jesus e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2 and Galatians 3:1 among others. The death of Jesus forms a central element of the Pauline letters. 1 Thessalonians 2:15 places the responsibility for the death of Jesus on some Jews. Moeover the statement in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 about the Jews "who both killed the Lord Jesus" and "drove out us" indicates that the death of Jesus was within the same time frame as the persecution of Paul.

• Burial: 1 Corinthians 15:4 and Romans 6:4 state that following his death Jesus was buried in a tomb. This reference is then used by Paul to build on the theology of resurrection, but reflects the common belief at the time that Jesus was buried after his death.

The existence of only these references to Jesus in the Pauline epistles has given rise to criticism of them by G. A. Wells, who is generally accepted as a leader of the movement to deny the historicity of Jesus. When Wells was still denying the existence of Jesus, he criticized the Pauline epistles for not mentioning items such as John the Baptist or Judas or the trial of Jesus and used that argument to conclude that Jesus was not a historical figure.

James D. G. Dunn addressed Wells' statement and stated that he knew of no other scholar that shared that view, and most other scholars had other and more plausible explanations for the fact that Paul did not include a narrative of the life of Jesus in his letters, which were primarily written as religious documents rather than historical chronicles at a time when the life story of Jesus could have been well known within the early Church. Dunn states that despite Wells' arguments, the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are a "thoroughly dead thesis".

While Wells no longer denies the existence of Jesus, he has responded to Dunn, stating that his arguments from silence not only apply to Paul but all early Christian authors, and that he still has a low opinion of early Christian texts, maintaining that for Paul Jesus may have existed a good number of decades before.

Pre-Pauline creeds

Main article: Creed

The Pauline letters sometimes refer to creeds, or confessions of faith, that predate their writings. For instance 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Romans 1:3-4 refers to Romans 1:2 just before it which mentions an existing gospel, and in effect may be treating it as an earlier creed.

One of the keys to identifying a pre-Pauline tradition is given in 1 Corinthians 15:11

Whether then [it be] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Here Paul refers to others before him who preached the creed. James Dunn states that 1 Corinthians 15:3 indicates that in the 30s Paul was taught about the death of Jesus a few years earlier.

The Pauline letters thus contain Christian creed elements of pre-Pauline origin. The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text," whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."

These creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. Although embedded within the texts of the New Testament, these creeds are a distinct source for Early Christianity. This indicates that existence and death of Jesus was part of Christian belief a few years after his death and over a decade before the writing of the Pauline epistles.

Gospels

See also: Historical Jesus, Synoptic problem, and Historicity of the canonical Gospels

P52, a papyrus fragment from a codex (c. 90–160), one of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts.

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus’ life, the teachings and actions attributed to him. Three of these namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are known as the synoptic Gospels, from the Greek σύν (syn "together") and ὄψις (opsis "view"), given that they display a high degree of similarity in content, narrative arrangement, language and paragraph structure. The presentation in the fourth canonical gospel, i.e. John, differs from these three in that it has more of a thematic nature rather than a narrative format. Scholars generally agree that it is impossible to find any direct literary relationship between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John.

The authors of the New Testament generally showed little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life with the secular history of the age. The gospels were primarily written as theological documents in the context of early Christianity with the chronological timelines as a secondary consideration. One manifestation of the gospels being theological documents rather than historical chronicles is that they devote about one third of their text to just seven days, namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem. Although the gospels do not provide enough details to satisfy the demands of modern historians regarding exact dates, scholars have used them to reconstruct a number of portraits of Jesus. However, as stated in John 21:25 the gospels do not claim to provide an exhaustive list of the events in the life of Jesus.

Scholars have varying degrees of certainty about the historical reliability of the accounts in the gospels, and the only two events whose historicity is the subject of almost universal agreement among scholars are the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and separately Craig A. Evans go further and assume that two other events in the gospels are historically certain, namely that Jesus called disciples, and caused a controversy at the Temple.

Ever since the Augustinian hypothesis, scholars continue to debate the order in which the gospels were written, and how they may have influenced each other, and several hypothesis exist in that regard, e.g. the Markan priority hypothesis holds that the Gospel of Mark was written first c. 70 AD/CE. In this approach, Matthew is placed at being sometime after this date and Luke is thought to have been written between 70 and 100 AD/CE. However, according to the competing, and more popular, Q source hypothesis, the gospels were not independently written, but were derived from a common source called Q. The two-source hypothesis then proposes that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew on the Gospel of Mark as well as on Q.

The gospels can be seen as having three separate lines: A literary line which looks at it from a textual perspective, secondly a historical line which observes how Christianity started as a renewal movement within Judaism and eventually separated from it, and finally a theological line which analyzes Christian teachings. Within the historical perspective, the gospels are not simply used to establish the existence of Jesus as sources in their own right alone, but their content is compared and contrasted to non-Christian sources, and the historical context, to draw conclusions about the historicity of Jesus.

Early Church fathers

Eusebius of Caesarea

Two possible patristic sources that may refer to eye witness encounters with Jesus are the early references of Papias and Quadratus, reported by Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century.

The works of Papias have not survived, but Eusebius quotes him as saying:

"…if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — that is, what according to the elders Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying."

Richard Bauckham states that while Papias was collecting his information (c. 90), Aristion and the elder John (who were Jesus’ disciples) were still alive and teaching in Asia minor, and Papias gathered information from people who had known them. However, the exact identity of the "elder John" is wound up in the debate on the authorship of the Gospel of John, and scholars have differing opinions on that, e.g. Jack Finegan states that Eusebius may have misunderstood what Papias wrote, and the elder John may be a different person from the author of the fourth gospel, yet still a disciple of Jesus. Gary Burge, on the other hand sees confusion on the part of Eusebius and holds the elder John to be different person from the apostle John.

The letter of Quadratus (possibly the first Christian apologist) to emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117 – 138) is likely to have an early date and is reported by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2 to have stated:

"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times."

By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus and the letter is most likely written before AD 124. Bauckham states that by “our times” he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117–124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias. Bauckham states that the importance of the statement attributed to Quadratus is that he emphasizes the "eye witness" nature of the testimonies to interaction with Jesus.

Gnostic and apocryphal texts

See also: Gnostic gospels and New Testament apocrypha

A number of later Christian texts, usually dating to the second century or later, exist as New Testament apocrypha, among which the gnostic gospels have been of major recent interest among scholars. The 1945 discovery of the Nag Hammadi library created a significant amount of scholarly interest and many modern scholars have since studied the gnostic gospels and written about them. However, the trend among the 21st century scholars has been to accept that while the gnostic gospels may shed light on the progression of early Christian beliefs, they offer very little to contribute to the study of the historicity of Jesus, in that they are rather late writings, usually consisting of sayings (rather than narrative), their authenticity and authorship remain questionable, and various parts of them rely on components of the New Testament. The focus of modern research into the historical Jesus has been away from gnostic writings and towards the comparison of Jewish, Greco-Roman and canonical Christian sources.

As an example, Bart Ehrman states that gnostic writings of the Gospel of Thomas (part of the Nag Hammadi library) have very little value in historical Jesus research, because the author of that gospel placed no importance on the physical experiences of Jesus (e.g. his crucifixion) or the physical existence of believers, and was only interested in the secret teachings of Jesus rather than any physical events. Similarly, the Apocryphon of John (also part of the Nag Hammadi library) has been useful in studying the prevailing attitudes in the second century, and questions of authorship regarding the Book of revelation, given that it refers to Revelation 1:19, but is mostly about the post ascension teachings of Jesus in a vision, not a narrative of his life. Some scholars such as Edward Arnal contend that the Gospel of Thomas continues to remain useful for understanding how the teachings of Jesus were transmitted among early Christians, and sheds light on the development of early Christianity.

There is overlap between the sayings of Jesus in the apocryphal texts and canonical Christian writings, and those not present in the canonical texts are called agrapha. There are at least 225 agrapha but most scholars who have studied them have drawn negative conclusions about the authenticity of most of them and see little value in using them for historical Jesus research. Robert Van Voorst states that the vast majority of the agrapha are certainly inauthentic. Scholars differ on the number of authentic agrapha, some estimating as low as 7 as authentic, others as high as 18 among the more than 200, rendering them of little value altogether. While research on apocryphal texts continues, the general scholarly opinion holds that they have little to offer to the study of the historicity of Jesus given that they are often of uncertain origin, and almost always later documents of lower value.

See also

• Cultural and historical background of Jesus
• The Bible and history

References

• Brown, Raymond E. (1997) An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday ISBN 0-385-24767-2
• Daniel Boyarin (2004). Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Doherty, Earl (1999). The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus. ISBN 0-9686014-0-5
• Drews, Arthur & Burns, C. Deslisle (1998). The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford Classics in the Study of Religion). ISBN 1-57392-190-4
• Ellegård, Alvar Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study In Creative Mythology, (London 1999).
• France, R.T. (2001). The Evidence for Jesus. Hodder & Stoughton.
• Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter. The Jesus Mysteries - was the original Jesus a pagan god? ISBN 0-7225-3677-1
• George, Augustin & Grelot, Pierre (Eds.) (1992). Introducción Crítica al Nuevo Testamento. Herder. ISBN 84-254-1277-3
• Koester, Helmut (1992). Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, PA: Continuum. ISBN 0-334-02450-1.
• Gowler, David B. (2007). What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?. Paulist Press.
• Grant, Michael, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner, 1995. ISBN 0-684-81867-1
• Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday

(1991), v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, ISBN 0-385-26425-9

(1994), v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, ISBN 0-385-46992-6

(2001), v. 3, Companions and Competitors, ISBN 0-385-46993-4

(2009), v. 4, Law and Love, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5

• Mendenhall, George E. (2001). Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context. ISBN 0-664-22313-3
• Messori, Vittorio (1977). Jesus hypotheses. St Paul Publications. ISBN 0-85439-154-1
• New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version. (1991) New York, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-528356-2
• Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-758-9.
• Price, Robert M. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-121-9.
• Wells, George A. (1988). The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-429-X
• Wells, George A. (1998). The Jesus Myth. ISBN 0-8126-9392-2
• Wells, George A. (2004). Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony. ISBN 0-8126-9567-4
• Wilson, Ian (2000). Jesus: The Evidence (1st ed.). Regnery Publishing.

cz:Historický Ježíš Template:Link GA