In 63 BCE Pompey attacked the Hasmonean kingdom.^[1] After Rome annexed Seleucid Syria in 64 BCE and established Roman supremacy in Phoenicia, Judaea bordered Roman territory and had been greatly weakened by three years of civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II.^[2]

After Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE, his territory was added to Syria. ^[3] Judea then came under direct Roman rule and tribute, but Rome still worked through a two-level arrangement of priestly administration under Roman oversight. ^[4][5] A Roman prefect oversaw the territory, but the high priest and the priestly aristocracy handled daily administration, including the collection of tribute. ^[6] In Josephus's account, the census and tribute introduced at this transition provoked resistance from Judas the Galilean, joined by Saddok the Pharisee. ^[5] Josephus later links that resistance to the line from which Zealot and Sicarii leaders emerged in the revolt of 66 CE. ^[7]

The Pharisees were a powerful force in 1st-century Judea. Early Christians shared several beliefs of the Pharisees, such as resurrection, retribution in the next world, angels, human freedom, and divine providence.^[8] After the fall of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic outlook was established in Rabbinic Judaism. The Sadducees were particularly powerful in Jerusalem; they accepted the written Law only, rejecting the traditional interpretations accepted by the Pharisees, such as belief in an afterlife, resurrection of the body, and angels. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Sadducees disappeared from history.^[9] The Essenes were apocalyptic ascetics, one of the three or four major Jewish schools of the time, although they were not mentioned in the New Testament.

By 66 CE, Jewish discontent with Rome had escalated into the First Jewish-Roman War. In 70 CE, the Temple was destroyed. The destruction of the Second Temple was a profoundly traumatic experience for the Jews.^[10] The destruction of Jerusalem, and the loss of significant portions of Jewish cultural records, was severe; Flavius Josephus wrote c. 75 CE in The Jewish War (Book VII, 1.1) that Jerusalem had been flattened to the point that "there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited." After Jerusalem was rebuilt as the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina, Jews were forbidden to live in it, and almost no direct records survive about the history of Judaism from the last part of the 1st century through the 2nd century.^[11]

Two organized groups remained after 70 CE: the early Christians and the Pharisees. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed light into the context of 1st-century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings, including the expectation of a coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, and much else of the early Christian movement, found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period. ^[12]

Despite this, several scholars have noticed that some of the healing miracles of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels bear similarities to Greek stories of miracles associated with Asclepius, the god of healing and medicine.^[13][14][15] Brennan R. Hill states that Jesus's miracles are, for the most part, clearly told in the context of the Jewish belief in the healing power of Yahweh,^[14] but notes that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels may have subtly borrowed from Greek literary models.^[16] He states that Jesus's healing miracles chiefly differ from those of Asclepius by the fact that Jesus's are attributed to a human being on earth,^[16] whereas Asclepius's miracles are performed by a distant god.^[16]

According to classical historians Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, the most obvious difference between Jesus and Asclepius is that Jesus extended his healing to "sinners and publicans",^[17] whereas Asclepius, as a god, refused to heal those who were ritually impure and confined his healing solely to those who thought pure thoughts.^[17]

Scholars disagree whether the parable of the rich man and Lazarus recorded in Luke 16:19–31 originates with Jesus or if it is a later Christian invention,^[18] but the story bears strong resemblances to various folktales told throughout the Near East.^[19]

Christianity's first literary language was Greek.^[20] Its first literary forms focused on teaching, instruction, and proclamation.^[20] These forms aimed to establish and organize a newly developing community.^[20] Among the first Christian literary works were the letters of Paul, written in the sixth or seventh decade of the 1st century.^[20] They belonged to the ancient epistolary tradition, which stressed friendly ties, advice from a distance, and, when addressed to a whole community, the communication of important measures or teachings.^[20] Their combination of pastoral care, personal communication, instruction, and stylistic and semantic idiosyncrasies made them unique within that relational genre.^[20] The Gospels represented the other main New Testament genre.^[20] They were composed in the last third of the 1st century and are classified as "person-centred historiography."^[20] The Gospels and Acts are anonymous because none of them gives the author's name in the text.^[21] The scholarly consensus holds that anonymous authors wrote the Gospels rather than the disciples named by tradition. Bart Ehrman states that very low literacy rates in 1st-century Palestine, especially in rural Galilee, make authorship by the disciples unlikely.^[22] Catherine Hezser likewise describes literacy among ordinary Jews in Roman Palestine as rare.^[23] Commentaries, sermons, and moral-philosophical treatises followed these first forms.^[20] Apologetic writing began with Justin Martyr in the middle of the 2nd century and used the legal and philosophical language of educated pagan critics in order to defend Christianity against them.^[20]

According to tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, companion of the Apostle Peter, writing in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community.^[24]

Early Christian tradition similarly held that the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, had written a Gospel in Aramaic, but modern scholars argue that Papias's description does not correspond well with the Gospel of Matthew as it was written in Greek and depends on Mark and the Q source.^[25]

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author, an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric.^[26] Irenaeus identified this author as Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt, and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.^[27]

John 21:24 identifies the source of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple", and from the late 2nd century, in a tradition first attested by Irenaeus, this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee.^[28] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an addition, either by the author of chapters 1-20 or by another redactor,^[29][30] although a growing minority view holds that the passage was part of the original text.^[31][32] The narrator is also presented as a witness in 1:14, and the gospel gradually identifies this witness with the beloved disciple, especially in chapter 19.^[33] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80-95 CE.^[21]

The seven Pauline epistles considered genuine by scholarly consensus are Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and the Epistle to Philemon, and these are almost universally accepted as the work of Paul.^[34][35]

The three Pastoral Epistles (First and Second Timothy and Titus) are probably all from one author, but most historical-critical scholars regard them as the work of someone other than Paul.^[36][35] Colossians and Ephesians are often grouped together and judged non-Pauline, while 2 Thessalonians is often regarded as non-Pauline and may reflect imitation of Pauline style.^[37][38] The real authors of the General Epistles are unknown; the names were attributed to them to make them seem more credible.^[34]

The Letter to the Hebrews was included in the church as the fourteenth letter of Paul until the Reformation, but Pauline authorship is now generally rejected and the real author is unknown. An exploratory stylometric study found Hebrews relatively close to First and Second Corinthians, but judged the evidence mixed and insufficient for firm empirical attribution.^[39] A later stylometric study states that modern scholarship holds a consensus that Paul is not the author of Hebrews and argues that Hebrews shares stylistic micro-patterns with other early Christian writings, with especially close contact in some features with Colossians and Ephesians.^[40] The author of the Book of Revelation was traditionally believed to be John the Apostle; this tradition can be traced to Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century, but most biblical scholars now believe the Revelation author and the Gospel author were separate individuals.^[21][41]

Biblical scholarship assumes that the Gospel stories are based on oral traditions and memories of Jesus that precede the surviving Gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus. ^[42] Theologians Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic Gospels, that they show local familiarity with the region, and that they were explicitly called 'memory,' indicating biographical elements that included historical references. ^[43]

According to theologians Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, there is no evidence that the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (the three earliest gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke) was directly influenced by pagan mythology in any significant way.^[44] The earliest followers of Jesus were devout Jews who abhorred paganism,^[45] and would therefore have been extremely unlikely to model accounts about their founder on pagan myths.^[44]

Nonetheless, most secular scholars generally agree that the gospels contain large amounts of material that is not historically accurate and is better categorized as legend.^[46] In a discussion of genuinely legendary episodes from the gospels, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman mentions the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the release of Barabbas.^[47] He points out, however, that just because these accounts are not true does not mean that Jesus himself did not exist.^[46]

It is widely agreed that the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels is deeply influenced by Jewish tradition.^[48][49] According to E. P. Sanders, the Synoptic Gospels contain many episodes in which Jesus's described actions clearly emulate those of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible.^[49] Sanders states that, in some of these cases, it is impossible to know for certain whether these parallels originate from the historical Jesus himself having deliberately imitated the Hebrew prophets, or from later Christians inventing mythological stories in order to portray Jesus as one of them,^[49] but, in many other instances, the parallels are clearly the work of the gospel-writers.^[50]

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The most common explanation, the two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q source, though hypotheses that posit use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity.^[51]

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. ^[52] The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded; among contemporary scholars there is consensus that the Gospels are a type of ancient biography, similar to Greco-Roman biographies such as Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, which narrate the lives of historical people.^[53][54] The surviving Gospels show usage of earlier independent written and oral sources that extended back to the time of Jesus's death but did not survive. ^[55]

Historians subject the Gospels to critical analysis by differentiating authentic, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.^[56]

Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 CE, four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts.^[57] German historian of religion Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the Gospels are unsatisfactory as they were not written as detailed historical biographies, that the non-Christian sources provide no new information, and that the sources hopelessly intertwine history and legend, but present the views and beliefs of the early disciples and the Christian community.^[58] However, evangelical New Testament scholars such as Craig Blomberg argue that the source material on Jesus correlates significantly with historical data.^[59]

Ancient Christian tradition generally ascribed the synoptic gospels to the apostle Matthew, to Mark, and to Luke, hence their canonical names.^[60] Ancient authors, however, did not agree on the order in which the Gospels were written. For example, Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second, and Mark wrote third;^[61] Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second, and Luke wrote third;^[62] Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later;^[63][64] and Irenaeus ordered the four Gospels as John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.^[65]

A remark by Augustine of Hippo at the beginning of the fifth century presents the Gospels as composed in their canonical order, with each evangelist building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors. This later became known as the Augustinian hypothesis.^[66]

In a theory first proposed by Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, the double tradition, material shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark, was explained by Matthew and Luke independently using two sources, the two-source (Mark-Q) theory, which supplemented Mark with another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was at first seen as the logia spoken of by Papias and thus called "L",^[67] but later it became more generally known as "Q", from the German Quelle, meaning source.^[68]

The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth by Burnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, which additionally hypothesized written sources "M" and "L" for "Special Matthew" and "Special Luke" respectively, hence the influential four-document hypothesis. This exemplifies scholarship of the time, which treated the canonical gospels as literary products shaped out of written and oral tradition.^[69]

Some scholars have argued that Luke used Matthew directly, dispensing with Q, as in the Farrer hypothesis.^[70][71] The Matthaean posteriority hypothesis likewise dispenses with Q, but instead ascribes the double tradition to Matthew's direct use of Luke.^[72]

Eta Linnemann disputed that literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels had been demonstrated. She argued that many introductory treatments assume literary dependence from the outset and then reason circularly from that premise, treating divergences as editorial "improvements" without first proving direct copying.^[73] She further argued that computer studies had not established the two-source theory as the uniquely best solution, because different studies yielded different source relationships or even excluded direct literary dependence among the Synoptics.^[73] Reporting her own quantitative comparison of a representative cross-section comprising 34.83 percent of Mark and its parallels, Linnemann stated that only 22.19 percent of the words in parallel passages were completely identical. On her figures, for every 100 words in Mark, Matthew showed 95.68 differences and Luke 100.43, which she took to mean that the data did not require literary dependence.^[73]

More recently, Andris Abakuks applied a statistical time series approach to the Greek texts to determine the relative likelihood of these proposals. Models without Q fit reasonably well, and his analysis suggested that at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. He found Luke the most likely synoptic gospel to be the last and Mark the least likely, though he did not claim that any proposal was ruled out.^[74]

The existence of the Q source has also received criticism in recent scholarship. Mark Goodacre and Brant Pitre have noted that no manuscript of Q has been found and that ancient writers do not refer to it.^[75][76][77] Joseph Fitzmyer described the Synoptic Problem as "practically insoluble".^[78]

Bellinzoni argues that the words "take up their cross" in Mark 8:34 fail the criterion of dissimilarity and may be an interpolation, but that the remainder of the verse, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves ... and follow me", meets the criteria of Aramaism or Semitism and contextual credibility.^{: 186 [79]}

J. A. Lloyd argues that recent archaeological research in the Galilee region shows that Jesus' itinerary as depicted by Mark is historically and geographically plausible.^[80] Craig A. Evans has also argued that there are archaeological finds that corroborate aspects of the time of Jesus mentioned in surviving sources, such as context from Nazareth, the Caiaphas ossuary, numerous synagogue buildings, and the burial of a crucified victim known as Jehohanan who had a Jewish burial after execution.^[81]

The Gospel of John, the latest of the four canonical gospels, contains ideas associated with Platonism and Greek philosophy,^[82][83] where the "Logos" described in John's prologue is often discussed in relation to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus and to its adaptation in Hellenistic Judaism by Philo of Alexandria.^[83] However, the author of the Gospel of John was not personally familiar with Greek philosophy^[84] and probably did not borrow the Logos theology directly from Platonic texts.^[82][83] Rather, these ideas were likely mediated through earlier Jewish deuterocanonical and wisdom traditions, which John inherited and further developed.^[82][83] Ehrman argues that the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3 depends on the double meaning of the Greek word anothen ("again" and "from above"), and that because Aramaic lacked the same ambiguity, the exchange is unlikely to have occurred as narrated.^{[85][86]: 26:10}

Some scholars have argued that the canonical Gospel of Matthew contains internal evidence showing that it was not translated from Hebrew, but was originally composed in Greek.^[87] This view was also supported by Erasmus, Webster, Paulus, and De Wette, while Eichhorn argued the opposite.^[87]

This interpretation is also linked to reports that the Ebionites and Nazarenes possessed a Hebrew gospel which they regarded as the only genuine text and called the Gospel according to Matthew.^[88][89] Jerome also reported that many considered this Hebrew gospel to be the genuine original Gospel of Matthew.^[90]

Another view, however, held that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was itself originally written in Hebrew and was substantially the same work as the Gospel of the Hebrews used among the Ebionites and Nazarenes, apart from later omissions, corruptions, and interpolations in the sectarian version.^[91]

Shepherd argues that Matthew's genealogy is structured around Hebrew gematria. In Matthew 1:1, Jesus is designated "the son of David, the son of Abraham", and the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew is 14 (דוד = 4 + 6 + 4), corresponding to the genealogy's three sets of 14 generations in Matthew 1:17.^[92] Shepherd further argues that such linguistic features connect New Testament texts to Aramaic-speaking Jews familiar with the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint in 1st-century Palestine.^[93]

The author of the Gospel of Matthew in particular intentionally seeks to portray Jesus as a "new Moses".^[48][94] Matthew's account of Herod's attempt to kill the infant Jesus, Jesus's family's flight into Egypt, and their subsequent return to Judaea is a mythical narrative based on the account of the Exodus in the Torah.^{[95][96][97][98][99][100][101]}

The Sermon on the Mount is another example of the way Matthew shapes his account in light of Jewish tradition.^[102][103] Although the sermon itself may contain some authentic sayings of the historical Jesus,^[104] the context of the sermon is widely understood as a literary construction that presents Jesus as a "new Moses".^[104][102] In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus delivers his first public sermon on a mountain in imitation of the giving of the Law of Moses atop Mount Sinai.^[102][103] According to New Testament scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, the teachings preserved in the sermon are statements that Jesus himself really said on different occasions and were only later gathered into an organized discourse by the author of Matthew.^[104][102]

The Gospel of Luke and Acts form the two-volume work known as Luke–Acts, and neither volume names its author.^[105][106] Traditional attribution to Luke has long been questioned because Acts differs from the Pauline letters, though some recent scholars judge the theological gap less sharply than earlier critics did.^{[107][108][109][110]} The "we" passages are still often taken as evidence of some eyewitness link, but that remains disputed.^[111][112] The earliest plausible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, but most scholars date Acts to 80-90 AD because it appears to use Mark, the content reflects the destruction of Jerusalem, and shows no clear awareness of Paul's letters.^[113][114] Some scholars date it to the early 2nd century if Acts used Josephus or knew a Pauline letter collection, but others dispute that case.^{[115][116][117]} A modern view within scholarship is more qualified: Acts must be used critically, and Paul's letters are generally preferred where they can be checked against it.^{[118]: 10 [119]: 316} Acts is often judged strongest in background detail. Its official titles, civic procedures, and administrative language often fit what is known of the 1st-century Mediterranean world.^[120] Talbert cautions, however, that accurate setting does not prove every narrated event.^[121] The main disputes concern narrated particulars. Scholars continue to debate the conversion figures in Acts 2 and 4, the chronology of Theudas in Acts 5, the "Italian regiment" in Caesarea, and how closely Acts 15 matches Galatians 2.^{[122][123][124][125][126][127]} Acts is therefore usually treated as a valuable but critically used source, strongest for setting and broad development, and weaker where speeches, numbers, chronology, or literary shaping are at issue.^[128][129]

Ehrman lists several criteria used in assessing historicity.^[130] He states that earlier sources are generally preferable, so Paul is the earliest major source, followed by Q and Mark, then Matthew and Luke, with John as the latest.^[130] He also argues that traditions showing greater theological development are less likely to preserve the historical Jesus in a straightforward way.^[130] In addition, he says that an author's bias must be identified and taken into account when evaluating that author's claims.^[131] He further includes multiple independent attestation, meaning that material found in several independent sources is more likely to be historical,^[132] contextual credibility, meaning that sayings or deeds must make sense within 1st-century Palestinian Judaism,^[133] and the criterion of dissimilarity.^[134]

On the criterion of dissimilarity, Ehrman says that material is more likely to be historical if it does not obviously serve the interests of early Christians, and less likely to be historical if it directly supports what early Christians were already saying about Jesus.^[135] At the same time, he stresses that this criterion has limits, since material that agrees with early Christian teaching is not therefore automatically unhistorical.^[135] For that reason, he says the criterion is best used positively, to suggest what Jesus likely did say or do, rather than negatively, to rule material out.^[135]

Hoffmann argued that New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written at a time when the line between natural and supernatural was not clearly drawn, and concluded that further historical research was not realistic. "No quantum of material discovered since the 1940s, in the absence of canonical material, would support the existence of a historical founder," he wrote. "No material regarded as canonical and no church doctrine built upon it in the history of the church would cause us to deny it. Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer."^[136]

The majority of New Testament scholars and historians of the ancient Near East agree that Jesus existed as an historical figure.^{[137][138][139][140][141]} While some scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.^{[142][143][144][145]}

There is widespread disagreement among scholars about the accuracy of details of Jesus's life as it is described in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,^{[146][147][148][149]} and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified under the orders of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.^{[147][146][150][151]}

It is also generally, although not universally, accepted that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who called disciples and whose activities were confined to Galilee and Judea, that he had a controversy in the Temple, and that, after his crucifixion, his ministry was continued by a group of his disciples, several of whom were persecuted.^[147][152]

Strauss pointed out that Christian tradition is fundamentally mythical, and that while he did not claim that there are no historical facts in the sources, there is too little evidence to reconstruct the historical image of Jesus to serve the Christian faith.^[153]

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. ^[154] Mainstream New Testament scholarship ignores the non-existence hypothesis, and the question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the 20th century. ^[155] The general consensus among modern scholars is that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth existed in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed. Bart Ehrman, in his 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." ^[156] James Dunn writes that "today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed." ^[157] Michael Grant, a classicist, stated in 1977: "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." ^[158] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. ^[142]

Within this fringe debate, Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus offered a recent mythicist case by applying the probabilistic method and Bayes' theorem to a minimal-historicity model and a minimal-mythicism model. Carrier nevertheless acknowledged that Jesus' historicity remained the default and near-universal scholarly consensus. ^[159] Carrier argued that the earliest Christians believed in a celestial, archangelic Jesus whose suffering, death, burial, and resurrection were first located in the heavenly realm and only later placed in recent earthly history by the Gospel narratives. ^[160]

Academic response to Carrier's reconstruction has been mostly critical. Raphael Lataster outlined Carrier's model in a review of the book, but Christina Petterson judged its New Testament scholarship weak and its statistical method tenuous. ^{[161] [162]} Daniel N. Gullotta concluded that Carrier's hypothesis was problematic and unpersuasive, Marko Marina argued that it was driven more by ideology than by sound historical method, and M. David Litwa criticized Carrier's use of the Rank-Raglan mythotype, dying-and-rising god comparisons, and celestial-crucifixion hypothesis. ^{[163] [164] [165]} James F. McGrath and Larry Hurtado likewise argued that Carrier's readings of Mark, the Ascension of Isaiah, Pauline material, and ancient Jewish evidence failed to persuade specialists. ^{[166] [167] [168]} Christopher M. Hansen challenged Carrier's claims about a pre-Christian heavenly Jesus and his use of the Raglan archetype, and a later statistical re-evaluation by Kamil Gregor, Brian Blais, and Hansen argued that Carrier's prior probability estimate depended on an unsound comparison set. ^{[169] [170] [171]}

There is no scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Bible. Only two events of the historical Jesus have been subject to "almost universal assent": that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, who officiated from 26 to 36 CE. ^[151] James Dunn, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, 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." ^[146]

Scholars distinguish between the "Christ of faith" as presented in the New Testament and subsequent Christian theology, and a minimal "Jesus of history." The historicity of the supernatural elements of the former narrative, including purported miracles and the resurrection, are outside the reach of historical methods.

At least 14 independent sources from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus survive. ^[172] Other independent sources did not survive but are noted in surviving sources. ^[173] The letters of Paul are the earliest surviving sources referencing Jesus. Paul adds autobiographical details such as personally knowing and interacting with eyewitnesses of Jesus, including Jesus' most intimate disciples, Peter and John, and his family member James, starting around 36 CE, within a few years of the crucifixion (30 or 33 CE). ^[174] Craig A. Evans and Ehrman argue that Paul's first meeting with Peter and James was around 36 CE. ^[175] Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion, and his conversion occurred two years after this event. ^[176]

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 Abraham and David, being a Jew raised in Jewish Law, gathering disciples (including Cephas and John), having a brother named James, other siblings who had wives, living an exemplary life, the Last Supper and the betrayal, the crucifixion and burial, and the resurrection. ^[177] According to Simon Gathercole, Paul's description of Jesus's life on Earth, his personality, and his family tend to establish that Paul regarded Jesus as a natural person rather than an allegorical figure. ^[178] There are independent sources, including Mark, John, Paul, and Josephus, all affirming that Jesus had brothers and other family members, including James, Joseph, Symeon, and Jude. ^[179] The brother wording used by Paul is the same biological sibling-relations grammatical wording found in Greco-Roman texts on siblings of kings and rulers. ^[180]

Contemporary non-Christian sources in the 1st and 2nd centuries never deny the existence of Jesus, and there is no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned his existence. ^[181] Non-Christian sources used to establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. 1st century Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be confirmed: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and Gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate's governorship. ^[182] Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and a group of "Christians" still existed. ^[183]

Josephus was personally involved in Galilee, where Jesus ministered and people who knew him resided, when he was the commander of Jewish forces during the revolt against Roman occupation, training 65,000 to 100,000 fighters in the region. ^[184] He stationed himself in Sepphoris for a time, which was 3 miles from Jesus's hometown of Nazareth, and kept contact with people involved in the trials of Jesus and his brother James, such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II. ^[185] Jesus is referenced by Josephus twice in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 to 94 CE. On the first reference, known as the Testimonium Flavianum in Book 18, the general consensus since the late 20th century holds that the Testimonium is partially authentic, in that an authentic nucleus referencing the life of Jesus was original to Josephus; stylistic studies revealed it to be closer to Josephus's language than was once assumed. ^[186] On the second reference, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." ^[187] No ancient source or ancient reference to the Testimonium supports negation; the claim that Jesus never existed is not known to have been made before the Enlightenment. ^[188]

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. 115 CE), book 15, chapter 44, describes Nero's scapegoating of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome.^[189] He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus, that he was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. ^[189] The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source. ^[190] The Mishnah (c. 200 CE) may refer to Jesus as it reflects early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician; other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence. ^[191]

A major line of historical Jesus research, associated with Schweitzer and common in the third quest, sees Jesus as an eschatological Jewish prophet proclaiming the imminent kingdom of God.^[192][193] Sayings about "this generation" and the nearness of the end indicate that Jesus expected God's decisive intervention soon.^[194]

Theissen and Merz argue that Jesus criticized the temple cult and, near the end of his life, deliberately instituted a rite that functioned as a replacement for sacrifice.^[195] The kingdom of God is described as the active realization of God's ethical will rather than an end in itself.^[196]

The earliest evidence for how Jesus's followers understood this message is found in Paul's undisputed letters of the 50s AD. Paul expected the end very soon, as shown by his advice on marriage, slavery, and social arrangements in light of the "present distress" and the shortness of the appointed time.^[194] This fits the broader view that early Christian communities expected Jesus's return within their own lifetime.^[194]

Some scholars read Jesus's predictions of an imminent parousia as mistaken, while others treat them as conditional judgement prophecy.^[197][198] The "kingdom of God" has therefore been read in several eschatological senses, including apocalyptic, realized, and inaugurated eschatology, without consensus.^[199]

This apocalyptic portrait remains mainstream, but it has been challenged. Jesus Seminar scholars placed apocalyptic expectation in the early church rather than in Jesus himself.^[200] Others argued that early strata of Q and the Gospel of Thomas lacked apocalyptic eschatology.^[201]

Recent scholarship has also reread gospel apocalyptic language in relation to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.^[202] Tabor likewise notes that Jesus's warning about a desecrating foreign presence in the Temple and the command to flee Judaea were later read against the background of Roman destruction.^[194] R. T. France and N. T. Wright argue that sayings such as Mark 13:26 refer not to the Second Coming but to the vindication of the Son of Man in connection with the Temple's fall.^[203][204]

The view that such coming-language refers chiefly to first-century events, especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, is commonly called preterism.^[205]

The delay of the end forced an early Christian reassessment. In his reading, later texts such as 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles reflect a longer time horizon, reduced apocalyptic urgency, and growing concern with church order and institutional continuity.^[194]

Modern secular historians generally regard the birth narratives in Luke 1:26–2:52 and Matthew as legendary or theological constructions rather than straightforward historical reports.^{[206][207][208]} According to E. P. Sanders, the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are the clearest examples of legend in the Synoptic Gospels.^[206] Géza Vermes and Sanders both describe the nativity accounts as pious fiction.^[209][210] Many scholars therefore do not treat the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke as historically factual, but as theological narratives.^{[211][212][213][214]}

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth, but they give different explanations for how this came about.^[206][215] They also present different genealogies and different infancy narratives.^{[211][212][213][214]} Matthew includes the angel's appearance to Joseph in a dream, the visit of the wise men, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight to Egypt.^{[216][217][218]} Luke instead includes the angel's appearance to Mary, the Roman census, the birth in a manger, and the angels' appearance to the shepherds.^{[216][217][218]} The two gospels also differ in their accounts of the family's movements after the birth. In Luke, the family goes to Jerusalem and then returns to Nazareth.^[219] In Matthew, the family is associated first with Bethlehem, then with Egypt, and only later with Nazareth.^[220][221]

The dating of Jesus' birth in Luke has been a major point of historical difficulty. Matthew places the birth during the reign of Herod I,^[222] and Luke 1 also sets the opening of the narrative in Herod's time.^[223] Luke 2, however, connects the birth to the census conducted while Quirinius was governor of Syria.^[224] Most critical scholars regard Luke's census notice as historically erroneous or at least historically problematic.^[225] Scholars note that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus in the form Luke describes, that Rome did not directly tax client kingdoms, that Roman censuses did not require people to travel to ancestral towns, and that a census in Judaea would not have applied to a family living in Galilee under a different ruler.^[226] Sanders likewise rejects Luke's census as historically credible, arguing that Roman practice did not require people to return to ancestral cities and that people could not realistically trace lineages back so many generations.^[210]

A number of modern scholars have nevertheless attempted to reconcile Luke's census notice with the known history of Roman administration.^{[227][228][229][230]} These proposals include alternative readings of Luke 2:2 and arguments that the Herodian kingdom may have been involved in wider Augustan enrollment practices.^{[228]: 278–282 [231][232]} According to Géza Vermes, however, such reconstructions conflict with the historical evidence if Luke is read as referring to the Census of Quirinius.^[233] Ralph Martin Novak argues that Quirinius's career and the succession of Syrian governors are sufficiently well documented that there is no identifiable period before 6 CE in which Quirinius could have held an earlier governorship of Syria.^[234] Novak further states that proposals for an earlier census are generally driven by prior commitments to biblical inerrancy rather than by the extant evidence.^[235] Vermes therefore describes attempts to preserve the historicity of the Lucan birth narrative as "exegetical acrobatics".^[233]

Several scholars accordingly argue that Luke used the census for literary or theological purposes rather than as a historically precise chronological notice. Raymond E. Brown states that the author of Luke used the census to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem.^[236] Joseph A. Fitzmyer similarly describes the census as a literary device used to associate Jesus' family of Nazareth with Bethlehem while also linking the birth to a time of political disturbance.^[237] Brown also suggests that Luke may have associated Galilee with the census because Judas was known as "of Galilee," even though Galilee and Judaea were politically distinct at the time.^[238] He further argues that Acts places Judas's revolt after that of Theudas, although Theudas belonged to a later period, which he treats as another chronological error in Luke-Acts.^[238] Karl Rahner likewise states that the gospels show little interest in synchronizing Jesus' birth and later life with secular history.^[239]

For these reasons, many scholars do not use most of the birth narratives as historical evidence.^[214][213] Some details are nevertheless treated as historically plausible, including a birth near the end of Herod's reign, during the reign of Augustus, and the tradition that Jesus' father was named Joseph.^[214][240] Raymond E. Brown states that scholars do not agree on the historicity of the infancy accounts, that most who reject Bethlehem as the place of birth place it instead at Nazareth, and that a few have proposed Capernaum or Chorazin.^[241] Bruce Chilton and Aviram Oshri proposed Bethlehem of Galilee, about seven miles from Nazareth, as the birthplace,^[242][243] but Armand P. Tarrech states that this proposal has no support in Jewish or Christian sources.^[244]

Many scholars treat the question of historicity as secondary because the gospels were written as theological documents rather than chronological biographies.^{[245][246][247][248][249]} Brown states that the infancy narratives were constructed from historical traditions that predate the gospels,^[250] while Allison and Davies argue that Matthew presents a unified and preexisting infancy narrative shaped in part by stories about Moses, while still preserving names such as Mary and Joseph and the setting of Nazareth in Herod's reign.^[216]

From a source-critical perspective, the birth narratives are usually treated as separate compositions rather than as one shared account. The two-source hypothesis holds that they do not derive from a single infancy narrative and do not share a common source.^[251][252] Paul Foster notes that discussion of the issue has centered on M, L, and Proto-Luke theories, as well as on the decline of those source-critical models.^[253] Anders Runesson and The Synoptic Problem 2022 also discuss alternatives such as the Farrer hypothesis, in which Luke used Matthew, and

The accounts of the Annunciation of Jesus's conception found in Matthew 1:18–22 and Luke 1:26–38 are both modelled on the accounts of the annunciations of Ishmael, Isaac, and Samson in the Old Testament.^{[207][208][254]}

Matthew quotes from the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 to support his account of the virgin birth of Jesus.^[255] The Hebrew text of this verse states, "Behold, the young woman [ha'almāh] is with child and about to bear a son and she will call him Immanuel."^[255] The Septuagint, however, translates the Hebrew word 'almāh, which literally means "young woman",^[255] as the Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which means "virgin".^[255]

Most secular historians therefore generally see the two separate accounts of the virgin birth from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as independent legendary inventions designed to fulfill the mistranslated passage from Isaiah.^{[256][257][258]} Sanders clarifies that the birth narratives are "an extreme case" resulting from the gospel authors' lack of knowledge about Jesus's birth and childhood,^[259] and that no other part of the gospels relies so heavily on Old Testament parallels.^[259] Sanders also notes that, despite the clearly intentional parallels, the "striking differences" between Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament are also highly significant,^[260] and that the gospels' accounts of Jesus's life on the whole do not closely resemble the lives of any of the figures in the Hebrew Bible.^[259]

Scholars are divided on the historicity of Jesus' miracles, and no consensus exists on how historians should assess miracle traditions. ^[261] One broad point commands wide agreement: Jesus was regarded by his contemporaries as an exorcist and miracle-worker. ^[261] The sharper disagreement concerns method. Some scholars rule out miracles a priori through methodological naturalism. Others allow their logical possibility but maintain that historians lack the kind or quantity of evidence needed to affirm them historically. Still others reject that prior skepticism and remain open to, or explicitly defend, the historicity of miracles in the Jesus tradition. ^[261] Bart Ehrman argues that historians, working with limited and problematic sources, cannot affirm or deny miracle reports as historians, whatever they may believe personally. ^[262][263] Michael Licona, by contrast, argues that some historians influenced by postmodern historiography have shown greater willingness to treat miracle claims as a legitimate subject of investigation. ^[264] Markus Bockmuehl argues that the tendency of many historical Jesus studies to avoid the resurrection question has left them methodologically weakened. ^[265]

Debate over miracles is set against the cultural world in which the Jesus traditions took shape. In the Hellenistic and Jewish environment of the 1st century, divine or extraordinary acts were commonly linked with gods, holy men, and prophets. ^[266] Figures such as Heracles, Asclepius, and Isis were believed to heal the sick and raise the dead, while philosophers such as Pythagoras and Empedocles were credited with calming storms and driving away pestilence. ^[266] Within Jewish tradition, Elisha was remembered as curing lepers and restoring the dead. ^[266] Apollonius of Tyana later became part of Christian-pagan controversy, as pagan critics cited his wonders to argue that Jesus was neither unique nor divine, and Eusebius replied to that charge. ^[267] The Gospels were written within this wider setting, in which wondrous deeds could function as signs of divine favor. The Gospel of John is especially explicit in presenting Jesus' deeds in this way. ^[268]

This debate has produced a range of historical readings rather than a simple divide between belief and disbelief. The Jesus Seminar held that Jesus probably healed some sick people, but interpreted such healings as psychosomatic and judged only six of the nineteen healing stories "probably reliable". ^[269] Most of its participants also thought Jesus practiced exorcism, while denying that the Gospel narratives preserve precise reports of individual episodes or that demons exist as such. ^[270] They did not accept the nature miracles as historical events. ^[271] Maurice Casey likewise judged it reasonable to suppose that Jesus cured people suffering from psychosomatic disorders, though he explained this in naturalistic terms, including the placebo effect. ^[272] By contrast, John P. Meier argues that Jesus as healer is as well supported as almost anything about the historical Jesus, and that his reputation as a miracle-worker was central both to his public impact and to the eschatological force of his message. ^[273] E. P. Sanders and Geza Vermes also argue that Jesus was in some real sense a healer and that this contributed to the growth of his following. ^[274][275]

Nonreligious criticism often approaches the issue by offering alternative explanations rather than denying that something was experienced. David Hume argued that miracle reports are inherently less credible than ordinary testimony because error, self-deception, and falsehood are more likely explanations than a suspension of the normal course of nature. ^[276] Will Durant later described Jesus' miracles as the result of suggestion, that is, the influence of a strong and confident spirit upon impressionable people, and compared them to phenomena reported at Lourdes. ^[277]

Although the crucifixion of Jesus is among the most historically secure events of his life, attested independently,^[150] it is one of only two facts, alongside his baptism by John, that scholars of all backgrounds regard as commanding almost universal assent.^[146] Historians of religion have also compared it to Greek and Roman stories in order to gain a better understanding of how non-Christians would have perceived accounts of Jesus's crucifixion.^[278]

It is widely accepted among New Testament scholars that Jesus' followers soon came to believe they had seen him resurrected shortly after his death.^[279] Robert Funk writes that the disciples thought they had witnessed Jesus' appearances, which, "however they are explained, is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."^[280]

Most scholars believe that the Gospels of Mark and John contain two independent attestations of an empty tomb, suggesting that both used already-existing sources and appealed to a commonly held tradition.^[281] Mike Licona writes that "not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition."^[282] Geza Vermes argues that if the accounts had been products of wholesale manufacturing, "it is highly unlikely that they would have provided female witnesses" who had no standing in a male-dominated Jewish society, and that had the narratives been the result of complete invention they "would have been more uniform and they would have included credible witnesses."^[283]

Skeptical scholars generally argue that the resurrection appearances were caused by hallucinations.^[284] Gerd Ludemann argues that Peter had a vision of Jesus induced by feelings of guilt for betraying Jesus, and that Peter experienced it as a real appearance of Jesus raised from the dead.^[285] However, scholars such as N.T. Wright and Dale Allison argue that hallucinations would not lead to or correspond to a belief in resurrection, since "such encounters were reasonably well known" in antiquity and "they could not possibly, by themselves, have given rise to the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead," since the ancient world already had clear language for visions of the dead and that language was not "resurrection."^[286]

Mike Licona argues that the diversity of different witnesses, including skeptics Paul and James, is of important value to historians.^[287] Historical Jesus scholars in general tend to avoid the resurrection topic since many believe the matter is one of faith or lack thereof.^[265] According to N.T. Wright, there is substantial unanimity among 1st and 2nd century Christian writers that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.^[288] he Matthean Posteriority hypothesis, in which Matthew knew Luke.^[51][289]

Scholars such as Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan doubt that Jesus had a decent burial, or that the disciples even knew what had happened to his body.^[290] Ehrman argues that crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible," and that the body was normally left on the stake to be eaten by animals.^[291]

In contrast, James Dunn argues that the burial tradition is "one of the oldest pieces of tradition we have," that burial was in line with Jewish custom, and that "the presence of the women at the cross and their involvement in Jesus' burial can be attributed more plausibly to early oral memory than to creative story-telling."^[292]

Religion professor John Granger Cook writes that historical texts outside the Gospels show that bodies of crucified dead were buried by family or friends, and that a narrative of burial "would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible."^[293]