The Historical Jesus
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. 12 Historical Facts About Jesus
3. Data From St. Paul’s Epistles
4. Ancient Non-Christian Historians and Writers
5. What Scholars Are Saying
6. Legal Experts on Gospel Reliability
7. Auxiliary Information
8. Recommended Books
INTRODUCTION
There is a fringe ideology promoted mostly by ill-informed atheists on the Internet, who are out of touch with modern scholarship and claim that Jesus is a myth. It is important for the reader to understand that this is not an issue being debated by credentialed New Testament scholars today. We know from the research of Dr. Gary Habermas, that virtually 100 percent of New Testament scholars today, whether theologically conservative or liberal believe certain facts about Jesus to be historical. Dr. Habermas has read over 4,200 sources, from 1975 to the present, in German, French, and English and discovered that there are certain facts about Jesus that are held by the majority of scholars. The scholars have written books relevant to Jesus, articles, held university Chairs and possess terminal degrees.
12 HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT JESUS
The following twelve separate facts about Jesus are considered knowable history by virtually all critical scholars (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 158). In other words, these events are considered historically factual by virtually all Jesus historians and New Testament scholars today, whether theologically conservative or liberal. Virtually 100 percent of scholars accept these facts, while about 80 percent accept number 4 (Jesus’ tomb was later found empty).
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. His disciples despaired.
4. Jesus' tomb was later found empty.
5. The disciples believed that they later saw literal appearances of Jesus.
6. The apostles were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers of his resurrection.
7. The resurrection of Christ was the center of the Apostles' early preaching.
8. The Apostles preached this in Jerusalem shortly after it happened.
9. The Church was born and grew rapidly.
10. Sunday was their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted from skepticism to belief in Jesus' resurrection.
12. A few years later Paul was converted, proclaiming that he had seen the resurrected Christ.
In his magnum opus, the first part of which was recently sent to the publishers, Dr. Gary Habermas gives 600 pages of evidence for these 12 historical facts. Taking only four of the facts (1, 5, 6, 12) a case can be made that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for these four facts (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 162-164). Update: Habermas’ first volume, “On the Resurrection: Evidences” was released on January 15, 2024.
DATA FROM ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES
Jesus’ historical existence is established by the data in Paul’s undisputed epistles. The following 7 epistles are considered by critical scholars to be genuinely Pauline (meaning, the critics believe Paul actually wrote them). The seven epistles attributed to Paul:
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.
Based on my count, the name Jesus appears 148 times in these epistles, and the term “Christ” approximately 295 times.
In the genuinely Pauline epistle to the Galatians, Paul states in chapter 1:18-19 that he spent 15 days with Peter, and met James, who he called "the Lord's brother." In Galatians 1:18 Paul writes, "...I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted [historesai] with Peter..." The Greek word historesai means to inquire, investigate, examine, or ask questions of. The root word for historesai is histor, from which we get the word history. In Galatians 2:1, Paul states that after fourteen years he went back to Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9 Paul states that James, Peter and John gave him the right hand of fellowship. If anyone were in a position to know whether or not Jesus existed, it is Peter, James, John and Paul. Paul clearly and obviously believed Jesus to be an historical person. He states that Christ was "born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). In the undisputed epistle of Romans, Paul states: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (1:3). The historicity of Jesus is established by these data and the other data in Paul’s undisputed epistles. Further, St. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Clement’s epistle to Corinth. Additionally, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians. This certification not only corroborates Paul’s belief in the historicity of Jesus, but also Paul’s belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Clement spoke of "the good apostles" (Peter and Paul). (1Clem. 5:3-6:1), and he called Paul, "the blessed Paul the apostle" (1Clem 47:1). Polycarp writes: "the blessed and glorious Paul...accurately and reliably taught the message concerning truth." (Poly, Phil. 3:2).
The whole New Testament furnishes evidence for Christ, but in this section I am only dealing with Paul.
ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS AND WRITERS
Much of my information in this section comes from Gary Habermas’ book, “The Historical Jesus”, chapter 9). But according to Habermas, the best book on the evidence for Christ outside the New Testament is, “Jesus Outside the New Testament,” by Van Voorst.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus lived from 37-100 A.D.. He wrote: "Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross." (Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" 18:3).
(In "Antiquities of the Jews" Josephus mentions Jesus twice, his brother James, John the Baptist, the High Priest Caiaphas, Pilate, and other persons mentioned in the gospels).
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus lived from 56-120 A.D. He reported: "a wise man who was called Jesus...Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die." Tacitus also reported that Jesus' disciples "reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive." (Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 15.44).
The Roman historian Suetonius (born A.D. 69) makes one reference to Jesus: Suetonius remarked concerning Claudius:
"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city." (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chapter 9).
“Chrestus” is a variant spelling of “Christ,” as noted by other commentators. (ibid).
Pliny the Younger, a government official. In his tenth book, written around 112 A.D. The relevant part states: “They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” (Quote from Habermas, The Historical Jesus-chapter 9).
According to Julius Africanus, the first century Palestinian historian, Thallus (A.D. 52), "when discussing the darkens which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ," spoke of an eclipse. (see, Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 113).
Lucian of Samosata was born in 125. A.D. He spoke of Christ as "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world." He called him the "crucified sophist." (Lucian, On the Death of Peregrine).
The letter of Mara Bar Serapion (A.D. 73) is housed in the British Museum, and speaks of Christ's death. It asks, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 114).
The Jewish Talmud says, "on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth)...Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin, 43a, "Eve of Passover").
Toledoth Jesu. This is an anti-Christian document that was compiled in the fifth century A.D. but it reflects early Jewish tradition. This text not only mentions Jesus, but gives an account of what happened to his body after his death (albeit incorrectly).
Gnostic Sources
The Gospel of Truth. This work was probably written by Valentinus, which would date it to around 135 160 A.D. If not, it still reflects his school of thought and would date to the second century A.D. It states that the Son of God came in the flesh. It states: “the Word came into the midst . . . it became a body.” Later it states: “For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father . . . . For he came by means of fleshly appearance.”
The Apocryphon of John. According to Habermas, Michael Grant asserts that this work is closely related to the thought of the gnostic teacher Saturninus, who taught around 120 130 A.D. St. Irenaeus used one of these versions as his source when treating gonsticism in “Against Heresies”, so it must have existed at his time, around 185 A.D. It states: “It happened [one day]when Jo[hn, the brother] of James,—who are the sons of Ze[bed]ee—went up and came to the temple, that a [Ph]arisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, “[Where] is your master whom you followed?” And he [said] to him, “He has gone to the place from which he came.” The Pharisee said to him, “[This Nazarene] deceived you (pl.) with deception and filled [your ears with lies] and closed [your hearts and turned you] from the traditions [of your fathers].”
The Gospel of Thomas is usually dated to 140 200 A.D. but it reflects thought of an earlier period. It’s opening statement says, “the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke.” Later, it states that the disciples referred to Jesus as the consummation of the prophets (42:13 18). In this work Jesus described himself as the Son of Man (47:34 48:4). There are other references to Jesus in this work as well.
The Treatise On Resurrection. It is probably best to date this work to the late second century A.D. The author states that Jesus became a human being but was still divine. It states: “The Lord . . . existed in flesh and . . . revealed himself as Son of God . . . Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure (of the cosmos) had come into being.”
Lost Works
Acts of Pontius Pilate. This work is mentioned by Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) and Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.). They both state that this work was an official document of Rome. Habermas writes: “Justin Martyr reported around 150 A.D. in his First Apology that the details of Jesus’ crucifixion could be validated from Pilate’s report.” Habermas further quotes Justin Martyr: “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the “Acts” of Pontius Pilate.” Habermas writes: “Capitalization or not of He/Him/His needs to be consistent throughout quote.” Later Justin lists several healing miracles, and states: ““And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.” Justin Martyr lists several facts which he believed were contained in Pilate’s report:
Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to the cross. 2. The soldiers gambled for his garments. 3. Several of Jesus’ miracles were in Pilate’s report.
The Roman historian Phlegon (second century A.D.) spoke of Jesus' death and resurrection in his Chronicles, "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed his hands had been pierced by nails." (Chronicles, as cited by Origin, 'Against Celsus" from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976, vol. 4, 455). Phelgon mentioned 'the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caeasar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place." (ibid).
WHAT SCHOLARS ARE SAYING
John Crossan, of St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, and co-founder of the liberal organization known as the Jesus Seminar, declared: “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.” (Crossan, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography, p. 145).
Marcus Borg, of Oregon State University and co-founder of the liberal Jesus Seminar: “some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.” (in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions).
Atheist New Testament scholar and historian Gerd Ludemann, of Vanderbuilt University: “Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” (Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, p. 50).
Richard A. Burridge, of King's College London: “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 any more.” (in Jesus Now and Then).
Agnostic Maurice Casey, of Nottingham University: “This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fueled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.” (in Jesus of Nazareth).
Maurice Casey: "The most important result of this book is that the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false". (Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, p. 243).
Maurice Casey: "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious, from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people. Most of them are former fundamentalist Christians who were not properly aware of critical scholarship then, and after conversion to atheism are not properly aware of critical scholarship now. They frequently confuse any New Testament scholarship with Christian fundamentalism. The mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false, from beginning to end." (Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?).
James Charlesworth, of Princeton Theological Seminary: “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” (in Jesus Within Judaism).
WD Davies & EP Sanders: “The information about Jesus which can be gleaned from sources other than the gospels – a few references in Josephus, one in Tacitus, and the information implicit in Paul’s letters, for example – does little more than confirm the historical reality of Jesus and the general time and place of his activity. …. He was a Galilean, and it is likely that his principal teaching and healing activity was in Galilee, but he was executed in Jerusalem. …. There are other facts about Jesus which are equally certain ….” (Jesus: from the Jewish Point of View, in The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol 3, 621-626).
Agnostic textual scholar Bart Ehrman, of University of North Carolina (Now Princeton): “I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” (interview by The Infidel Guy).
Bart Ehrman: “Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.” (Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (Harper One), 14).
Bart Ehrman writes: "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, p. 256-257).
(Side note: Bart Ehrman lists 15 independent sources for the crucifixion. (see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth).
Craig Evans, of Arcadia Divinity College, Arcadia University: “Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. …. the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding.” (What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus?).
Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire and of Trinity College, Cambridge: “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. ….. 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 an historian’s review of the gospels).
Michael Grant: "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars". (Grant, Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels, p. 200).
A.E. Harvey, formerly at Oxford: “[The following is beyond reasonable doubt from everyone’s point of view:] that Jesus was known in both Galilee and Jerusalem, that he was a teacher, that he carried out cures of various illnesses, particularly demon possession and that these were widely regarded as miraculous; that he was involved in controversy with fellow Jews over questions of the law of Moses; and that he was crucified in the governorship of Pontius Pilate.” (in Jesus and the constraints of history).
Larry Hurtado, of Edinburgh University: “So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot.” (in Larry Hurtado’s Blog).
Larry Hurtado: "The overwhelming body of scholars, in New Testament, Christian Origins, Ancient History, Ancient Judaism, Roman-era Religion, Archaeology/History of Roman Judea, and a good many related fields as well, hold that there was a first-century Jewish man known as Jesus of Nazareth, that he engaged in an itinerant preaching/prophetic activity in Galilee, that he drew to himself a band of close followers, and that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate." (Article, “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars").
Edwin Judge, of Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University: “An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.” (the Foreword to the truth about Jesus by P Barnett).
Amy-Jill Devine, of Vanderbilt University: “there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus’ life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE).” (quoted in Wikipedia).
Jeffery Jay Lowder: “I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.” (writing on the Secular Web).
J Paget, of Cambridge University: “…. a growing conviction among many scholars that the Gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought …. subsequent Christianity may be in greater continuity with Jesus than was previously thought.” (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus).
M.A. Powell, of Trinity Lutheran Seminary: “Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well-respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat" (in The Jesus Debate).
EP Sanders, of Oxford & Duke Universities: "“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.” (in The Historical Figure of Jesus).
Graham Stanton, of Cambridge University: “Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.” (in The Gospels and Jesus).
Geza Vermes, of Oxford University: "“Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.” Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary, in Jesus outside the New Testament. “[In answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.” (in A new church is born, History magazine).
N.T. Wright, of Oxford & St Andrews Universities: “The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did.” (in the Guardian).
(Note on N.T. Wright. Dr. Michael McClymond described N.T. Wright as,"Perhaps the foremost Pauline scholar alive today"-see his article “Opiate of the Theologians”. Newsweek called Dr. Wright, “the world’s leading New Testament scholar").
Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould: "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 any more. There's a lot of evidence for his existence." (Jesus Now and Then, p. 34).
James Dunn states that the view that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth is a thoroughly dead thesis. (see Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, Citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971).
Robert Van Voorst writes: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." (Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament : an introduction to the ancient evidence, p. 16).
Agnostic, maybe atheist Joseph Hoffman, of Oxford. He said this about mythicists: "The disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense. They are the single greatest threat next to fundamentalism, to the calm and considered academic study of religion. Touting the scientific method as their mode op, while ignoring it's application to historical study. While there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." (quoted by Mike Licona in "Real Historian Responds to "Jesus Was a Myth" Claims" YouTube).
The liberal theologian Hans Kung of the Pontifical Gregorian University writes: "the fact of the crucifixion, which according to all the earliest Christian, Jewish and pagan sources is historically indisputable and needs no proof." (Kung, Islam: Past, Present & Future, p. 498).
William Lane Craig has two doctorates, one in theology, from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and one in philosophy from the University of Birmingham. He said about the non-historicity of Jesus view: "This is a position which is so extreme, that to call it marginal would be an understatement. It doesn't even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship." (Craig-Carrier debate on the Resurrection).
Gary Habermas also has two doctorates, one from Michigan State University, and one from Emmanuel College Oxford, England. A former skeptic, and previously leaning toward Buddhism before examining the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, he is now believed by many to be the world’s foremost expert on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He categorically affirms the historicity of Jesus, as we see in his published works. Dr. Habermas is currently working on his magnum opus on the resurrection of Christ, which is 5,500 pages (four volumes).
In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars (Van Voorst 2003, pp. 658, 660; Fox, The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian, Basic Books, p. 48; Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34; Bart Ehrman,"Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier". The Bart Ehrman Blog).
LEGAL EXPERTS ON GOSPEL RELIABILITY
Lawyers that were originally critics of the Gospels but became believers after studying and applying the legal rules of evidence to the gospels.
Craig Parton, Ross Clifford, Frank Morrison, Thomas Sherlock (The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus), Simon Greenleaf (The Testimony of the Evangelists). To see a recent survey of this area, read "The Historical Development of Legal Apologetics, with an Emphasis on the Resurrection," by William Broughton.
There are three forms of evidence: testimonial, documentary and real. The gospels are documentary evidence (i.e., writings).
Appropriate custody contributes to the authenticity of the documents. (Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, p. 16).
The Gospels have been in the Church, so they can be authenticated. (ibid 16-17).
The early Church carefully copied and translated the words and deeds of Christ without fabrication. (Limbaugh, Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel, p. 212).
The Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, credited with writing the standard study of legal evidence, wrote: "copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (see Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, 9-10).
AUXILIARY INFORMATION
Evidence of the James Ossuary
An ossuary contains human bones. This procedure occurred from about 70 B.C. to 70 A.D. One thousand have been found, 25 percent have inscriptions on them. Normally they have Aramaic inscriptions. The relevant one here has a seven word Aramaic inscription which reads: "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." Only one other ossuary has the name of a brother on it, so the Jesus mentioned here must have been renowned. This discovery was originally considered inauthentic and fake, but after a seven year trial in Israel, all charges were dropped. The majority of scholars today accept this as an authentic artifact. This artifact is in the Israel museum today - the Caiaphas ossuary is also in the same museum.
The Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin is not part of my case for the historical Jesus. We don't need the Shroud to establish the historicity and resurrection of Christ. However, there are good reasons to believe it is authentic. See my article on the Shroud, linked at the end of this article.
Against the Pagan Parallel Thesis
The view that Jesus is a copycat from pre-Christian, pagan savior deities is a view that was invented by late 19th century to early 20th century liberal, German, and anti-Semitic theologians who preferred a pagan Christ, as opposed to a Jewish Christ. But this view has been almost universally rejected today by modern scholars, Christian and non-Christian. The primary sources do not support the position. See the relevant video a the end of this article.
Recommended Resources Against the Pagan-Parallel Thesis:
Myth Became Fact, by C.S. Lewis;
Riddle of Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East, by Mettinger;
The Gospel and the Greeks, by Nash;
Reinventing Jesus, by J. Ed Komoszewski;
Shattering the Christ Myth, by Holding.
The stories of Greek gods becoming human via miraculous events like a virgin birth were not prior to but after the time of Christ. (Yamauchi, "Easter-Myth, Hallucination, or History" in Christianity Today, 2. parts 3/15/74; 3/29/74).
The Witness of Early Christian Writers:
Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John stated: "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for ours sins suffered even unto death." (Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philipians, Chapter 1 in "The Apostolic Fathers," ed. A Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, 33).
Ignatius was a friend of Polycarp, and he affirmed Jesus' death, saying "And He really suffered and died, and rose again."
According to Ignatius, otherwise the apostles died in vain. He wrote "But, (in truth) none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly." (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter 3 in "The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 107).
In his "Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr notes that the Jews of his time believed that "Jesus [was] a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho).
Justin Martyr referred to the "Acts of Pontus Pilate" under whom "nails were fixed in Jesus' hands and feet on the cross; and after he was crucified, his executioners cast lots for his garments." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 35, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 175).
Papias was a disciples of the Apostle John. He wrote: "I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned from the elders and carefully remembered guaranteeing their truth." (Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 314).
St. Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John and learned from him. (Irenaeus. Letter to Florinus, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.20. 5-6).
The New Testament is Historically Reliable
The ancient Church historian Eusebius said the four gospels were never doubted by the orthodox church as coming from the apostles who's names they bore. (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1).
The early Church Fathers knew that Matthew was written by Matthew. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).
Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, took his preaching and made it the Gospel of Mark. The New Testament scholar William Lane Craig said most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark is based on eye-witness testimony (Craig, On Guard, p. 222). Rudolph Pesch, a German expert on the Gospel of Mark believes that the passion narrative in Mark comes from a source dated to A.D. 37. (ibid, p. 191).
Luke, Paul's personal traveling companion, as seen in the "we" sections of Acts 16:10-18 composed Luke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).
John the Apostle wrote the gospel that bears his name (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.11). John used "we" several times (1:14; 1 John 1:1-3).
Luke 1:2: "eyewitnesses" (Greek, autoptai)= firsthand observers of the events. (Bauchum, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 117). Also see: 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:11, 1:3; Acts 4:20; 1 Peter 5:1.
"Most scholars have taken the view that Luke's preface as a whole belongs within the tradition of Greek historiography and for its first readers would serve to identity the genre of Luke's work as some kind of history." (Bauchum, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 117).
Luke-Acts appropriately belongs within the rather wide spectrum of "Hellenistic historiography." (ibid, p. 118).
The eminent British scripture scholar and classicist F.F. Bruce writes:..."Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy." (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 90).
The world-famous archaeologist Sir William Ramsay stated: "Luke is a historian of the first rank...This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." (Craig, On Guard, p. 194).
No document from the ancient world is as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament (Montgomery, History and Christianity, p. 29).
The Roman historian Colin Hemer overwhelmingly confirms the historicity of the New Testament. (see Hemer, Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History).
30 persons in the New Testament have been confirmed by archaeology. (Holden, The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics, 203).
The Book of Acts has at least 84 facts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. (see Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an atheist, pp. 256-259).
The classical Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White notes: "For the New Testament book of Acts, the confirmation of history is overwhelming...Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." (Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 189).
The New Testament scholar Dr. William Lane Craig states that most scholars today believe that the Gospel of Mark is based on eyewitness testimony. (Craig, On Guard, p. 222).
The Apostle St. Paul
Paul claims to be an eye-witness to the resurrected Christ, and his writings predate any of the gospels. Three years after Paul's conversion, he went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with St. Peter. (see Gal. 1). He also met St. James, the brother of Christ. Paul also states that 14 years later he went back to Jerusalem and met Peter, James and John. (see Gal. 2). He states that the reason for this visit was because he wanted to confirm that the Gospel message he had been preaching was accurate. Paul says they confirmed his preaching, and they extended to him the right hand of fellowship. According to Paul, his preaching was certified by the pillars Peter, James and John. How do we know Paul related the truth? St. Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter, and he called Paul the blessed Paul; and in his letter to the church at Corinth, Clement places Paul on par with his mentor the Apostle Peter. Further, St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and in his letter to the church at Philippi, he states that Paul accurately and reliably taught the message of truth. And in the same letter, he quotes from Paul's letter twice and refers to them as part of the sacred Scripture. These are not the kind of things you would say about Paul if he was teaching heresy. Clement spoke of "the good apostles" (Peter and Paul). (1Clem. 5:3-6:1), and he called Paul, "the blessed Paul the apostle" (1Clem 47:1). Polycarp writes: "the blessed and glorious Paul...accurately and reliably taught the message concerning truth." (Poly, Phil. 3:2). So, when we hear from St. Paul, we are hearing the voice of the Jerusalem apostles. Paul is also certified in the canonical letter of 2 Peter (3:15-16). See these relevant books: "The Origin of Paul's Religion," by Machen; "Paul and Jesus,' by Bruce; and "Paul and Jesus,' by Ridderbos.
RECOMMENDED BOOKS
The Case For Christ, by Strobel;
On Guard, by William Lane Craig;
The Historical Jesus, by Habermas;
Reinventing Jesus, by Komoszewski;
Defending the Resurrection, by Holding;
On the Resurrection: Evidences, by Habermas;
The Resurrection of the Son of God, by Wright;
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Blomberg;
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, by Blomberg;
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas and Licona;
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, by Hurtdao;
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, by Licona;
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Baukham;
Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of Resurrection of Jesus, by Craig;
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, by Van Voorst;
EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith, by Habermas.
A Lecture on the Resurrection With Dr. Gary Habermas