The historicity of Jesus is the debate "on the fringes of scholarship" and in popular culture regarding whether Jesus historically existed or was a purely mythological figure. Mainstream New Testament scholarship ignores the non-existence hypothesis and its arguments, as the question of historicity was settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, and the consensus among modern scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea (specifically in Galilee) and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century AD, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed. However, scholars distinguish between the 'Christ of faith' as presented in the New Testament and the subsequent Christian theology, and a minimal 'Jesus of history', about whom almost nothing can be known.
There is no scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Bible, and only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus's life have been widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of Pontius Pilate, though even the baptism-narrative has been questioned. Furthermore, the historicity of supernatural elements like his purported miracles and resurrection are deemed to be solely a matter of 'faith' or of 'theology', or lack thereof.
The Christ myth theory, developed in 19th century scholarship and gaining popular attraction since the turn of the 20th century, is the view that Jesus is purely a mythological figure and that Christianity began with belief in such a figure. Proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus's existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan or mythical roots. The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles and has had no support in critical studies for more than a century, with most such theories going without recognition or serious engagement.
Academic efforts from multiple fields in biblical studies to determine facts of Jesus's life have been refined through an ongoing "quest for the historical Jesus", and several methods are used in evaluating the authenticity of elements of the Gospel-story. The criterion of multiple attestation is used to argue that attestation by multiple independent sources confirms his existence. There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus such as the letters of Paul (a contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses since the mid 30s AD), the gospels (as biographies on historical people similar to Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates); non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator). Multiple independent sources affirm that Jesus actually had family.
Modern scholarship
Existence of historical Jesus
Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in the early 20th century, and scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth existed in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea in the 1st century AD.Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, p. 61 Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase.Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (1997) pp. 9–13Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1999) pp. 19–23 Modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable or plausible about Jesus.John, Jesus, and History Volume 1 by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (2007) p. 131
Jesus's death and resurrection seem to have been part of one of the oldest credos as given by Paul, but there is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Christian and non-Christian sources. Reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" are broadly debated for their reliability, and only two events of this historical Jesus have been subject to "almost universal assent," namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (who officiated 26–36 AD), though even the baptism-narrative has been questioned. Lightfoot Professor of Divinity James Dunn stated that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."
Based on the criterion of embarrassment, scholars argue that the early Christian Church would not have invented the painful death of their leader.John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 pp. 126–128 Scholars vary in their classification of the criterion of embarrassment, either treating it as a subset of the criterion of dissimilarity (Holmén, Polkow) or treating it as its own criterion (Allison, Casey). The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus,Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 pp. 31–32 given that John baptised for the remission of sins, although Jesus was viewed as without sin and this positioned John above Jesus.Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 p. 47 Yet, the usefulness of the criterion of embarrassment has also been questioned, as these dissimilarities do not in themselves prove that these oldest traditions are not also inventions. Nonetheless, other scholars use other methods besides the criteria such as memory studies for the baptism and other elements of the life of Jesus.
In his popular book Did Jesus Exist? (2012), American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explained:
A distinction is made between 'the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith', and the historicity of the supernatural elements of the latter narrative, including his purported miracles or resurrection, are outside the reach of the historical methods.
Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory, which developed within scholarly research in the 19th century, is, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley's words, the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology" possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". Bart Ehrman summarises Earl Doherty's view as being "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition".
Many mythicism proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus's existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan or mythical roots.
Mythicism has not gained traction among experts. The Christ myth theory has been on the fringes of scholarship for over two centuries, with virtually no support from scholars. Virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.
Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.
David Gullotta states that modern interest in mythicism has been "amplified by internet conspiracy culture, pseudoscience, and media sensationalism". Justin Meggitt, Professor of the Study of Religion at Cambridge University,Professor Justin Meggitt partially attributed the recent cultural prominence of mythicism to the popularisation of a new wave of scholarship promoting the idea. Maurice Casey and Ehrman note that many mythicism proponents are either atheists or agnostics.
Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Methodological considerations
Multiple attestation The criterion of multiple attestation looks at the number of early sources that mention Jesus and evaluates the reliability of those sources. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus, there are at least twelve independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters, most of which represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity. Other independent sources did not survive.
There are Christian sources on the person of Jesus (the letters of Paul and the Gospels), and there are also Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) that mention Jesus. From Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus alone, the existence of Jesus along with the general time and place of his activity can be confirmed.
There are also apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings from early Christianity. These are additional independent sources on Jesus's existence, and they corroborate details found in other surviving sources as a "bedrock of historical tradition". Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second century never deny the existence of Jesus, and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 pp. 730–731Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 15 Taking into consideration that sources on other first-century individuals from Galilee were also written by either supporters or enemies as well, the sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.
Early dates of the Christian oral traditions and Paul Biblical scholarship assumes that the gospel-stories are based on oral traditions and memories of Jesus. These traditions precede the surviving gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus and the time of Paul's persecution of the early Christian Jews, prior to his conversion.
According to British biblical scholar and Anglican priest Christopher M. Tuckett, most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus. He states that the historical value of traditions are not necessarily correlated with the later dates of composition of writings since even later sources can contain early tradition material. Theologians Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic gospels, that such traditions show local familiarity of the region, and that such traditions were explicitly called "memory", indicating biographical elements that included historical references such as notable people from his era. According to Maurice Casey, some sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources that indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony.