The term historical Jesus refers to the life and teachings of Jesus as interpreted through critical historical methods, in contrast to traditional religious interpretations. It considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press pp. 1–2Ehrman, Bart D. (1999), Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium Oxford University Press pp. ix–xiEhrman, Bart (2003). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press. , chapters 13, 15
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.: "The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt."In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God . pp. 256–257Robert M. Price (an 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. 61Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) p. 200 Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (2005) pp. 1–6
Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels, while several non-biblical sources also support his historical existence.Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence . Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria. Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.
The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed through history using these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. Such portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah, prophet of social change, and rabbi. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it, but there are overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.
Historical existence
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (2004) p. 34 Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." There is no indication that 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
There are at least 14 independent sources from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus that survive. Other independent sources did not survive, but are broadly referenced directly in the surviving sources themselves (e.g. Luke) or inferred from modern source analysis. The letters of Paul are the earliest surviving sources referencing Jesus, and Paul documents personally knowing and interacting with eyewitnesses such as Jesus' brother James and some of Jesus' closest disciples around 36 AD, within a few years of the crucifixion (30 or 33 AD). Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and throughout his letters, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can be found including details such as being born of a woman, descending from regular people such as Abraham and David, being a Jew and being brought up in Jewish Law, gathering together disciples, having family, the Last Supper, being betrayed, being crucified, people being involved in his crucifixion, etc.Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 Baker Academic pp. 441-442 Besides the gospels, and the letters of Paul, non-biblical works that are considered sources for the historicity of Jesus include two mentions in Antiquities of the Jews (Testimonium Flavianum, Jesus' own brother James) by Jewish historian and Galilean military leader Josephus (dated circa 93–94 AD) and a mention in Annals by Roman historian Tacitus (circa 116 AD). From just Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus alone, the existence of Jesus along with the general time and place of his activity can be adduced. Additionally, multiple independent sources affirm that Jesus actually had siblings. Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second centuries never deny the existence of Jesus including Pagan or Jewish writers who opposed Christianity.
Since the 1970s, various scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders and Gerd Theissen have traced elements of Christianity to currents in first-century Judaism and have discarded nineteenth-century minority views that Jesus was based on previous pagan deities. Mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians. Differences between the content of the Jewish Messianic prophecies and the life of Jesus undermine the idea that Jesus was invented as a Jewish Midrash or Peshar. The presence of details of Jesus' life in Paul, and the differences between letters and Gospels, are sufficient for most scholars to dismiss mythicist claims concerning Paul.Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. . Theissen says "there is broad scholarly consensus that we can best find access to the historical Jesus through the Synoptic tradition." Bart D. Ehrman adds: "To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." One book argues that if Jesus did not exist, "the origin of the faith of the early Christians remains a perplexing mystery." Eddy and Boyd say the best history can assert is probability, yet the probability of Jesus having existed is so high, Ehrman says "virtually all historians and scholars have concluded Jesus did exist as a historical figure."Van Voorst 2000, p. 16 Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 Oxford University Press, p. 145: In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, "Earl Doherty defines the view...In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Further quoting as representative the fuller definition provided by Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory 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." In the 21st century, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. For example, Earl Doherty has written that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8"The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005 Many proponents use a three-fold argument first 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 and/or mythical roots."Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, pp. 8–9Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. pp. 55–83. ISBN 978-0-8308-3868-4
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p.16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (2007) Cambridge University Press pp. 35–36 states that the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis" Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his 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 Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
Sources
Due to the significant number of sources written relatively soon after his death, Jesus is one of the best documented figures from the First Century, comparable to Julius Caesar and Herod the Great.
The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.