Historicity of Jesus: Encyclopedia - Historicity of Jesus

Historicity of Jesus

• New Testament view
• Miracles
• Parables
• Quotes
• Chronology
• Religious views
• Background
• Names and titles
• Relics
• Historicity
• Historical view
• Language
• Race
• Dramatic portrayals
• Images

The historicity of Jesus (i.e., his existence as an actual historical figure), is accepted by three major world religions, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith based on their respective scriptures, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Kitáb-i-Íqán. However, while Christianity and the Bahá'í Faith consider Jesus to be the Christ (Messiah) and Son of God, and Islam views him as a prophet, secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and a few dispute whether he ever existed.

Many scholars see the Biblical narratives of Jesus' life as theological or mythologized accounts of a historical figure's life, aimed at winning new converts rather than at being a neutral historical record. The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories.

Disagreeing with the consensus regarding Jesus' existence, the "mythological school" sees Jesus as an interpolation into one of the older mystery religions with dying/reborn gods such as Osiris-Dionysus. This theory is commonly known as the Jesus Myth. Others see the apparent relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity as being based on an historical figure acting as the focal point for the linking of Jewish religious traditions and political history with a mystery religion, a syncretism—ultimately more popular among Gentiles than Jews—which would become Christianity.

Historicity of Jesus - Contemporary sources

Historicity of Jesus - Christian writings

Jesus features prominently throughout the New Testament and other early Christian writings, but since later parts of the Bible were largely based on earlier ones, it is the oldest remaining Christian texts that are the most valuable for getting a relatively accurate account of Jesus' life.

The most detailed sources of historical information about Jesus in the Bible are contained within the Gospels. However, some also claim that evidence for a historical Jesus is provided by the Epistles, especially those by Paul.

Jesus is also a large factor in New Testament apocrypha, works that some early Christians, notably in the Council of Laodicea, chose to exclude from the canon, based on judgments regarding whether or not they were inspired by God. Again, the most detailed extra-biblical information is contained within apocryphal Gospels, but the contents of other books has also been presented as evidence.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not explicitly claim to be written by first-hand witnesses (though a tradition, often disputed by scholars, has the first written by a scribe to the apostle Peter, the second by the apostle Matthew, and the third by a close disciple of the apostle Paul), and thus these may be subject to the distortions any second- or third-hand account would tend to have. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, has a strong tradition of apostolic authorship; however, many dispute this authorship for a number of reasons. Others have argued that the information provided about specific events demonstrates that the Gospels must have been written by people who had contact with Jesus; however, use of multiple textual sources and/or fabricating some details could also account for the specificity of the accounts.

Some historians believe that the texts on which the Gospels were based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide valid evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, and a partially reliable account of his life and death.

Believers in Biblical inerrancy, such as Christian fundamentalists, reject all claims that the Gospels are anything less than the literal truth regarding Jesus' life. However, subjecting the Bible to the same level of source criticism that secular historical texts receive raises questions of historiography. Nonetheless, while historians consider the Gospels biased toward the Christian perspective, most of them still believe that the Gospel stories are based on historical events; the chief disagreement is to what extent.

A significant factor in considering the historicity of the Gospels is the Synoptic problem: in some areas, the first three Gospels seem to contradict each other, while in other areas they are so close in wording that one could almost be a direct copy of the other. The most common theories explaining these discrepancies are that either some of the Gospels drew partly from a common source, or that the Gospels were based, directly or indirectly, on one another.

Although the traditional stance of the early Church was that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, the Gospel of Mark is now considered by almost all Biblical historians to be the earliest of the four (see Markan priority). These scholars date it before AD 70^[1], fairly close to the early oral preaching about Jesus' life. Similar preaching may also have survived in part through the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as it is believed that those two Gospels both based much of their accounts on Mark and on another, unknown and possibly even earlier, document—a hypothetical "sayings Gospel" dubbed the Q document by New Testament scholars.

Paul, according to both the Acts of the Apostles and his own letters, had never met Jesus; he knew him only from his visions and his conversations with other Christians. Nevertheless, his epistles, being written over a period from 55 to 65, are often consulted for evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus. However, all but 7 of his epistles are regarded by a majority of modern scholars as having not genuinely been authored by him.

The significance of non-Pauline authorship varies depending on which epistle is considered, but it is notable that the 7 uncontested epistles appear to some scholars to present a more docetic and gnostic view than the far more orthodox epistles which constitute those in dispute, particularly more so than the pastorals. Princeton University's Professor of Religion, Elaine Pagels, a specialist in the study of gnosticism has in consequence proposed that Paul was in fact a gnostic, in her book The Gnostic Paul; a view which implies that the Pastorals, and the other disputed Pauline epistles, were created by the church to bring Paul's followers into the fold and to simultaneously subtly counter his arguments. Pagels' arguments have not found widespread acceptance in academia. Given that Paul never declares that he gnostic and that he also attacks the gnostics in the epistles 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.

The epistles which the Bible itself attributes to other individuals (Peter, James, John, and Jude) are generally considered to be written at a much later date, and hence are rarely considered in this context.

The Gospel of Thomas is a logia, a "sayings gospel", which consists entirely of phrases and sayings attributed to Jesus, much like the theoretical Q document to which it may be related. This text is believed by some scholars to possibly predate the canonical Gospels, but other scholars date the Gospel of Thomas as late as 150, citing possible gnostic influences in it and the lack of any quotations from it in any contemporary writings, and believe that it suffers from a paucity of manuscripts. [2][3]

In addition, some scholars see the lack of mention of a resurrection of Jesus within the Gospel as significant. On the other hand, many textual scholars have argued that the Gospel of Mark may originally have ended without mentioning a resurrection as well, particularly given that the most ancient manuscripts of Mark 16 do not present the ending used in modern translations. [4]

Some Gnostic texts also provide fairly early accounts of Jesus' life, and these can be considered valuable as they never became part of the canon and hence never had to adhere to Christian orthodoxy. However, Gnostic texts tend to deliberately be more allegorical than historical, so the search for evidence of Jesus' life centers more around other early writings that give more of an impression of being based on real events. The Gnostics opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to complete myth, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part.

Historicity of Jesus - Non-Christian writings

Of the non-Christian commentators living within memory of Jesus, very few are said to have written anything at all about Jesus or Christianity. Most writers of the time whose works have survived had little interest in the Middle East in general, and Judea in particular, and so would have little reason to write about a local religious leader who preached there for a handful of years. One would though expect an account of men rising from the dead to be regarded as sufficiently noteworthy for it to have been passed to more than a handful of commentators.

Nonetheless, four major non-Christian historians of the time are claimed by various groups to have written material relating to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Pliny the Younger condemned Christians as easily led fools, as did the rhetorician Lucian some years later. There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Surviving manuscripts of Tacitus (in a passage in the Annals written c. 115) summarize popular opinion about Jesus, but do not demonstrate access to any independent source of information. Of the four, Josephus' writings are the most interesting to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus.

However, there was no mention of these passages by early Christian writers, and in the case of Tacitus nothing was noted about Christianity until the translation by Sulpicius Severus. The most substantial non-Christian source is Josephus. Both John the Baptist and James the Just are also documented in Josephus, and the only record that unambiguously mentions Jesus himself is that of Josephus in a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum. However, its authenticity is still greatly debated as well.

Many Christians use a passage from the Jewish historian Josephus as evidence that the New Testament is not the only contemporary document concerning Jesus. However, John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been forged. A 10th century manuscript has been discovered which reports the existence of an alternate version of the passage. No explanation has been provided as to how this text came to be and why it differs from the other texts. Some scholars consider this text to also be a forgery or to be in error, since the author, Agapius of Hierapolis, seems to have quoted it from memory. The growing consensus among scholars is that the passage is not entirely forged, but it is difficult to be sure what the original passage said.

Around 112 AD, in a correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, a reference is made to Christians. In it, Pliny asks for the advice on how to handle Christians who refused to worship the emperor, but instead worshiped "Christus" as a god. However, Pliny simply recounts what the beliefs of the arrested were; he does not mention the name "Jesus". Pliny's words are

In a later writing, Pliny mentions that he believed Christianity to be a foolish superstition.

Gaius Suetonius (c.69 AD–140 AD) wrote the following in 112 AD as part of his biography of Emperor Claudius (12 Caesars): Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit ("As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.").

Some have interpreted Chrestus as a misspelling of Christus, and thus as a possible reference to Jesus. However, Suetonius implies that the person in question was in Rome in 54 AD, making the likelihood that he is writing about Jesus very slim.

The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, indicating that such a spelling error is not unthinkable. However, Chrestus is itself a common name in Rome, meaning good or useful. It was a particularly common name for slaves, and, indeed, the passage deals with a slave revolt. As such, this passage is not held by the vast majority of scholars to be a reference to Jesus.

Tacitus wrote two paragraphs on the subject of Jesus and Christianity in 116 AD. The first states that Christians existed in Rome in Nero's time (54-68 AD). The second states that Christianity arose in Rome and Judea, and that Jesus was sent to death by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus' description of Christianity is decidedly negative, as he calls it a "dangerous superstition" and "something raw and shameful," which makes it relatively improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.

Some scholars suggest that the second paragraph is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e. that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Others, including Karl Adam, claim that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus' execution before writing it.

There are very few historical documents from the late Second Temple era. Aside from the works by Josephus, the oldest text from that period, the Mishnah is a law code, and not a record of legal proceedings, nor a general history.

Jewish records of the period, both oral and written, were compiled into the Talmud, a collection of legal debates and stories so large that it fills over 30 volumes. There is no mention of anyone called "Jesus" (in Heb. Yehoshuah) within it, the closest match being a person (or persons) called Yeshu from the Babylonian Talmud. However, the description of Yeshu does not match the biblical accounts of Jesus, and the name itself is usually considered to be a derogatory acronym for anyone (possibly, but not necessarily, Christians) attempting to convert Jews from Judaism, standing for yemach shemo vezichro ("erased be his name and memory"). Additionally, the term does not occur in the Jerusalem version of the text, which would be expected to mention Jesus more often than the Babylonian version, rather than less.

However, the lack of references to Jesus in Talmudic writings may simply be due to Christianity being a minor, negligible organization when most of the Talmud was created, in addition to the Talmud being more concerned with teachings and law than with recording history.

Historicity of Jesus - Jesus as historical figure

While some historians consider Jesus to largely be a mythological and legendary entity, others—generally, though not always, Christians—consider accounts of Jesus' life to be largely, or even entirely, historical and factual in nature. Some of these historians have also suggested that one treat the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the New Testament as distinct questions. Some notable historians have affirmed the resurrection of Jesus such as A. N. Sherwin-White, Thomas Arnold, and Michael Grant.

Even outside of those who believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be largely historical, there are many who reject the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths. For example, the contributors to the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies maintained that the only area which has any historical detail with regard to the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was in the area of art.

In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that historians often have to contend with documentation of differing quantity and quality. In many cases—Sanders provides the examples of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill—historians are fortunate to have access to a good deal of documentation, although much of it has to be interpreted critically. In some cases—and Sanders presents Alexander the Great as paradigmatic—the available sources tell us much about his deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. Sanders considers the quest for the "historical Jesus" to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to details on Jefferson or Churchill. For this reason, he concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought" (1993:3).

Paul Barnett has also pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognized the "subjectivity" factor in their available sources" and that "they have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand". He notes that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation. ^[5].

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan and John Meier argue that although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure, whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the source documents on which several modern source hypotheses argue the four canonical Gospel accounts are based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians draw on the canonical Gospel accounts, but also on other historical sources and archaeological evidence, to reconstruct as best they can the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Historicity of Jesus - Jesus as myth

Some scholars argue that Jesus may never have existed outside of the mythological realm at all; in support of this claim, they cite a lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers, insufficient physical evidence, and similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts. Perhaps most prolific of these Biblical scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is the professor of German George Albert Wells. However, currently the position that Jesus never existed is a minority view among scholars [6].

Historicity of Jesus - Jesus and syncretism

The existence of Gnosticism and various mystery religions with similarities to Christianity has led the mythological school to suggest that Christianity was strongly influenced by these, essentially building a mystery religion on the foundation of a Judaic tradition (syncretism). This would have included linking the two through Jesus' attempts to fulfill Old Testament prophecies. More generally, it would have included mythologizing a Jewish leader into a Son of God, and a representative of wisdom and knowledge.

Some of the most well-known early adherents of the mythological school include Voltaire, Friedrich Engels, and David Strauss (1808-1874), who was the most intellectually influential early mythologist. Strauss accepted that Jesus had existed, but believed the miraculous aspects of the Gospel accounts to be mythical. According to the Slovenian scholar Anton Strle, Nietzsche lost his faith in Christianity as a result of reading Strauss' book Leben Jesu. Another important mythologist was Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959), a philosopher and a consistent defender of the thesis that Jesus did not exist.

Another integral part of this view is the idea the early Christians were docetic - that Christ was a spiritual being rather than flesh and blood. Author G.A. Wells says regarding the New Testament:

During the first and second centuries BC, Hellenic philosophy merged with various minor deities to produce mystery religions, in which a Life-death-rebirth deity was used as an allegory for the search for wisdom. Such religions quickly replaced or absorbed local religions and became the dominant beliefs in many places throughout the Mediterranean, with the resulting variations of the central god-man figure becoming known as Osiris-Dionysus.

Some scholars, most notably Martin A. Larson, who somewhat contradictingly hails from an evangelical background, and more recently Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, who wrote The Jesus Mysteries, think that Jesus was one of the forms of Osiris-Dionysus. CNN's David Dodson, in a review of their book, however, noted that "while the authors discuss many examples of elements of Osiris/Dionysus in the Jesus story, they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy. This oversight undermines the credibility of many of their arguments, and could have the tendency to mislead the novice reader in this subject" [7]. On the other hand, the Canberra Times said

A recent book, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light (2004), by professor, priest, and religious writer Tom Harpur, discusses another possible origin, based partly on the writings of Alvin Boyd Kuhn and Egyptologist Gerald Massey. Massey's The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ: A Lecture, published in 1880, explores the similarity between what has been written about Jesus and what has been written about Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who "may have been born about the year 120 B.C." From page 2 of the lecture: "... according to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract 'Shabbath', this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. ..." See Yeshu.

Historicity of Jesus - Other views

Another persistent theory is that Jesus' existence is based on a whisper campaign to expel the Roman rulers, originally intending to portray Jesus as a revolutionary leader rather than as a purely spiritual savior.^{[citation needed]}

Historicity of Jesus - Notes

1. ^ , The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, ISBN 0195283562, New Testament page 47 (Introduction to the Gospel of Mark)
2. ^  Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament History?", p.1.

See also

• Authorship of the Pauline Epistles
• Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus

• Historical Jesus
• History of Christianity
• Jesus-Myth
• Christ conspiracy

• Jesus Seminar
• Markan priority
• New Testament apocrypha

• Textual criticism
• The God Who Wasn't There
• Two source hypothesis
• Yeshu

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Historicity of Jesus", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki