Historicity of Jesus

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]

Judea Province during the 1st century

Historical existence

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[15][16][17] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual 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.”[18]


All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. 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.[19]

New Testament sources

Synoptic Gospels

An 11th-century Byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the Gospel of Luke.

Main article: Synoptic Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.[20][21][22] These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities,[23] and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic.[24] The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the Synoptic Gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.[25]

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus.[26] Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus[27] and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person[note 4] and a Jew.[note 5][28][29][30][31] Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus.[32][note 6]

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.[34][35][36][36][37]

In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[38][39] On the other hand, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that “few have doubted the genuineness” of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.[40][41][42][43]

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[44] describes Nero’s scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.[45] Some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.[46]


The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[47][48][49][50] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[47][51]

Critical-historical research

Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[52][53][54][55][56]

Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis by differentiating authentic, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.[20] Since there are more textual variants in the New Testament (200–400 thousand) than it has letters (c. 140 thousand),[57] scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as ‘original’. To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[58] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. Scholars may also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, a document has misquoted texts from the Hebrew Tanakh, has made incorrect claims about geography, if the author appears to have hidden information, or if the author has fabricated a prophecy.[59] Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, to writers outside the church, primarily Jewish and Greco-Roman historians, who would have been more likely to have criticized the church, and to archaeological evidence.

Quest for the historical Jesus

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.[60][61] Various criteria of authenticity are developed and employed to distinguish early oral elements from later literary elements in the Gospel stories, regarding those early elements as original elements of Jesus’ teachings and biography.

Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.[62][63] Since the late 2000s, concerns have been growing about the usefulness of these criteria.[64]

Historical Jesus

Main article: Historical Jesus

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[65] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[5] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[65]

Baptism and crucifixion

Part of the ancient Madaba Map showing two possible baptism locations

The only two events subject to “almost universal assent” are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[4][5][3][66][note 1]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[3] He 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’ they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus’ mission.”[3] 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.[68] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[69][70][71] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[69][71][72]

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, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[73]

Other episodes

There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[74][75][76]

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[4][77]

  • Jesus was a Galilean Jew.
  • His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
  • He was baptized by John the Baptist.
  • He called disciples.
  • He had a controversy at the Temple.
  • Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[4][77]
  • After his death his disciples continued.
  • Some of his disciples were persecuted.[4][77]

Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal.[4][77][78] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[79][80][81][82][83][84]

In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus.[85][86]

Portraits of the historical Jesus

The portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[85][15][86] There are overlapping attributes among the portraits, and while pairs of scholars may agree on some attributes, those same scholars may differ on other attributes, and there is no single portrait of the historical Jesus that satisfies most scholars.[87][88][89] The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophetcharismatic healerCynic philosopherJewish Messiah; and prophet of social change;[87][90][90] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[85][86][91][92] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[87][90][88]

Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory is the view that “the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology,” possessing no “substantial claims to historical fact.”[93] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrmanparaphrasing Earl Doherty, “the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.”[94]

Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[15][17][95] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[96][2][97][98][note 3]

Several authors, including Thomas L. Thompson and Robert M. Price, have take a more moderate, “agnostic stance,” arguing that while there are a number of plausible Jesuses that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the biblical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[105][106]


  1.  Certain facts of Jesus life:
    • James Dunn states of “baptism and crucifixion”, these “two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent”.[3]
    • Crossan: “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.”[67]
  2.  Akenson: “…The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice”.[10]
  3.  The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship:
    • Robert E. Van Voorst, referring to G.A. Wells: “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”.[11]
    • While discussing the “striking” fact that “we don’t have any Roman records, of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus,” Ehrman dismisses claims that this means Jesus never existed, saying, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence.”[99]
    • Robert M. Price, a former fundamentalist apologist who is now a Christian atheist, says the existence of Jesus cannot be ruled out, but is less probable than non-existence, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[100]
    • Michael Grant, a classicist, states: “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.”[101]
    • “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.”[102]
    • Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that “the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications.”[103]
    • Bockmuel: “[F]arfetched theories that Jesus’ existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible.”[104]
  4.  In Galatians 4:4, Paul states that Jesus was “born of a woman.”
  5.  In Romans 1:3, Paul states that Jesus was “born under the law.”
  6.  That Jesus had a brother named James is corroborated by Josephus.[33]


  1.  Blomberg 2007.
  2.  Fox 2005, p. 48.
  3.  Dunn 2003, p. 339.
  4. Herzog 2005, p. 1–6.
  5.  Powell 1998, p. 168–173.
  6.  Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN0-691-00992-9.
  7.  Bart D. Ehrman (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN978-0-19-512473-6.
  8.  Dunn 2003, p. 125–127.
  9.  E. Meyers & J. Strange (1992). Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
  10.  Donald H. Akenson (2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-01073-1.
  11.  Robert E. Van Voorst (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN978-0-8028-4368-5.
  12.  Mark Allan Powell (1998). Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 168. ISBN978-0-664-25703-3.
  13.  James L. Houlden (2003). Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: Entries A–J. ABC-CLIO. ISBN978-1-57607-856-3.
  14.  Robert E. Van Voorst (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 14. ISBN978-0-8028-4368-5.
  15.  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” B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of GodISBN978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285
  16.  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, ISBN0830838686 p. 61
  17.  Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (April 1, 2004) ISBN0802809774 p. 34
  18.  Michael Grant (1977), Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels
  19.  Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1996). The Historical Jesus. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press. pp. 17–62. ISBN978-0-8006-3122-2.
  20.  Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
  21.  “Jesus Christ”Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 27 November 2010The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus
  22.  Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004.
  23.  Mark Allan Powell (editor), The New Testament Today, p. 50 (Westminster John Knox Press, 1999). ISBN0-664-25824-7
  24.  Stanley E. Porter (editor), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, p. 68 (Leiden, 1997). ISBN90-04-09921-2
  25.  Green, Joel B. (2013). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels(2nd ed.). IVP Academic. p. 541. ISBN978-0830824564.
  26.  Edward Adams in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN0521796784 pp. 94–96.
  27.  Eddy, Paul Rhodes; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic. p. 202. ISBN978-0-8010-3114-4.
  28.  Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. pp. 122–126. ISBN0521796784.
  29.  Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (2003) ISBN0802839312 p. 143
  30.  Jesus Christ in History and Scripture by Edgar V. McKnight 1999 ISBN0865546770 p. 38
  31.  Jesus according to Paul by Victor Paul Furnish 1994 ISBN0521458242 pp. 19–20
  32.  Galatians 1:19
  33.  Murphy, Caherine M. (2007). The Historical Jesus For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 140. ISBN978-0470167854.
  34.  The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN0521796784 pp. 121–125
  35.  Bruce David Chilton; Craig Alan Evans (1998). Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. BRILL. pp. 460–470. ISBN90-04-11142-5.
  36.  Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN0-8054-4482-3 pp. 431–436
  37.  Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39–53
  38.  Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian LiteratureISBN90-232-2653-4.
  39.  Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New TestamentISBN0-8054-4365-7.
  40.  The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN0-8254-2924-2 pp. 662–663
  41.  Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN0674995023p. 496
  42.  Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient EvidenceISBN0-8028-4368-9. p. 83
  43.  Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the Essential Works: A Condensation of Jewish Antiquities and The Jewish warISBN978-0-8254-3260-6 pp. 284–285
  44.  P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, p. 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996) ISBN0-521-21043-7
  45.  Eddy 2007, p. 179-180.
  46.  F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
  47.  Jesus and the Politics of his Day by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (1985) ISBN0521313449 p. 393
  48.  In Jesus: The Complete Guide edited by J. L. Houlden (8 Feb 2006) ISBN082648011X pp. 693–694
  49.  Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (24 Aug 2009) ISBN0691143188 pp. 9, 141
  50.  Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg (1 Aug 2009) ISBN0805444823 p. 280
  51.  Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New TestamentISBN0-8054-4365-7. pp. 107–109
  52.  Craig Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 5
  53.  Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of Canonical Gospels pg 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
  54.  “The Historical Figure of Jesus,” Sanders, E.P., Penguin Books: London, 1995, p. 3.
  55.  Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word (Vol. II): Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew – Dr Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, Introduction
  56.  Grant, Robert M. “A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Harper and Row, 1963)”Religion-Online.org. Archived from the original on 21 June 2010.
  57.  Bart D. EhrmanMisquoting Jesus – The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, p. 90 (review).
  58.  Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. (2008, Baker Academic). 309-262.
  59.  The Gospel of Matthew claims, the title Nazarene for Jesus was derived from the prophecy “He will be called a Nazorean” (Matthew 2:22–23), despite the lack of any Old Testamentsource.
  60.  Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (May 8, 1997) ISBN0830815449 pp. 9–13
  61.  Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN0664257038 pp. 19–23
  62.  John, Jesus, and History Volume 1 by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (14 Nov 2007) ISBN1589832930p. 131
  63.  John P. Meier “Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?” in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (15 Jul 2006) ISBN1575061007p. 124 “Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more.”
  64.  Keith, Chris; Le Donne, Anthony, eds. (2012), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, A&C Black
  65.  Powell 1998, p. 181.
  66.  Crossan 1994, p. 145.
  67.  Crossan 1994, p. 45.
  68.  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 ISBN1-57506-100-7 pp. 126–128
  69.  Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN0-664-25703-8 p. 47
  70.  Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 ISBN0664258425 pp. 31–32
  71.  Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching by Maurice Casey 2010 ISBN0-567-64517-7 p. 35
  72.  The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide by Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz 1998 ISBN0-8006-3122-6 p. 207
  73.  Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4. ISBN0-691-00992-9.
  74.  Eisenmann, Robert, (2001), “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
  75.  Butz, Jeffrey (2005), “The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Traditions of Christianity” (Inner Traditions)
  76.  Tabor, James (2012), “Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity” (Simon & Schuster)
  77.  Authenticating the Activities of Jesus by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans 2002 ISBN0391041649 pp. 3–7
  78.  Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Nov 1998) ISBN0664257038 p. 117
  79.  Who is Jesus? Answers to your questions about the historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts (Westminster John Knox Press 1999), p. 108
  80.  James G. D. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) pp. 779–781.
  81.  Rev. John Edmunds, 1855 The Seven Sayings of Christ on the Cross. Thomas Hatchford Publishers, London, p. 26
  82.  Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978 ISBN0-664-24195-6
  83.  Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus SeminarThe acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus.HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. “Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension” pp. 449–495.
  84.  Bruce M. Metzger‘s Textual Commentary on the Greek New TestamentLuke 24:51 is missing in some important early witnesses, Acts 1 varies between the Alexandrian and Western versions.
  85.  The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN0664225373 p. 5
  86.  Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN0802863531 pp. 1–2
  87.  The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN978-0-8054-4365-3 pp. 124–125
  88.  Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN0802826806pp. 16–22
  89.  Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton University Press ISBN978-0-691-00992-6 p. 1: “no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars”
  90.  The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN0521812399 p. 23
  91.  Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN0567044602T&T Clark p. 74
  92.  The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazarethby Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN0830815449 p. 197
  93.  Bromiley 1982, p. 1034.
  94.  Ehrman 2012, p. 12, 347, n. 1.
  95.  James D. G. Dunn (1974) 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)): “Perhaps we should also mention that at the other end of the spectrum Paul’s apparent lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus has been made the major plank in an attempt to revive the nevertheless thoroughly dead thesis that the Jesus of the Gospels was a mythical figure.” An almost identical quotation is included in Dunn, James DG (1998) The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 191, and Sykes, S. (1991) Sacrifice and redemption: Durham essays in theology.Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36.
  96.  Van Voorst (2003), pp. 658, 660.
  97.  Burridge & Gould (2004), p. 34.
  98.  Ehrman, Bart (25 April 2012). “Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier”The Bart Ehrman Blog. Retrieved 2 May 2018.
  99.  Bart D. Ehrman (2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN978-0-06-207863-6.
  100.  James Douglas Grant Dunn (2010). The Historical Jesus: Five ViewsSPCK Publishing. p. 61. ISBN978-0-281-06329-1.
  101.  Michael Grant (2004). Jesus. Orion. p. 200. ISBN978-1-898799-88-7.
  102.  Richard A. Burridge; Graham Gould (2004). Jesus Now and Then. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 34. ISBN978-0-8028-0977-3.
  103.  Casey, Maurice (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. New York City, New York and London, England: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 243. ISBN978-0-56744-762-3.
  104.  Markus Bockmuehl (2001). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 123–124. ISBN978-0-521-79678-1.
  105.  Thomas L. Thompson; Thomas S. Verenna (2013). ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. Acumen Publishing, Limited. ISBN978-1-84465-729-2.
  106.  Davies’ article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia