Evidence for the Historical Jesus - Research Paper Example

Evidence for the Historical Jesus Table of Contents Evidence for the Historical Jesus 3 References 7 Evidence for the HistoricalJesus There is a proliferation of evidence for the historical Jesus, both within and outside the Bible. For instance, in the Bible, Ehrman (2012) points to the historical Paul, who in turn attests to knowing the brother of Jesus, James, and to knowing Jesus’ disciple Peter. This personal knowledge by Paul of these two figures is important. According to Ehrman, James the brother would be in the know if Jesus actually existed or not. The fact that Paul went on with his evangelizing work in the name of Jesus, having had that intimate access to James, meant that Jesus did exist. In the simplest terms, this is the case of Paul having the means to verify through James whether he had a brother Jesus or not. This is a natural means of verifying Jesus’ existence through relationships verification. This same process works in the case of for Paul directly knowing Peter, the disciple who is nearest to Jesus. If Jesus did not exist, then Peter would have told Paul so. This is common sense, given the public nature of Pauls work. Peter would have corrected him if Jesus did not exist. Also, Jesus being a life-defining figure for Paul, it would have been fantastic if he did not try to discuss Jesus with Peter and James. Peter and James would have corrected hm if Jesus did not exist. The personal relationships of Paul with James and Peter therefore stand as very solid pieces of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. In turn, Pauls life accounts in the Bible can be taken as concrete evidence for the same (Ehrman, 2012). In Galatians 2, we have an account of the precise nature of that personal relationship and interaction between James the brother of Jesus and Paul, with Paul attesting to his being accepted by the disciples as a representative of the church to the Gentiles, in the same manner that Peter was the apostle for those who were part of the group of circumcised people. “James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me (Galatians 2:9 New International Version). In Galatians 1, too, Paul narrates his personal close contact with Peter, who he calls Cephas, and his encounter with James. This was when he visited Jerusalem, and when he stayed there with Peter for fifteen days: “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:18-19). Evans (2012), on the other hand, focuses on the archaeological evidence and concludes that the archaeological evidence validates the existence of the historical Jesus. The archaeological evidence includes infrastructure such as synagogues that have been unearthed around the time of Jesus, which corroborate the Biblical accounts and stories during Jesus time. They also include such pieces of evidence as the remains of the skeleton of a man dated to the time of Jesus, which has a spike through the right heel. This indicates that the practice of crucifying people and of piercing their feet with spikes to pin them to the crosses was common during the time of Jesus. Many such individual pieces of archaeological evidence come together to make a strong case for the historical Jesus, and for the recreation of Jesus life from that evidence. To cite a few more, the name of Caiaphas the priest’s name had been inscribed in a bone box, and the same had been found for his granddaughter; evidence of literacy in areas where Jesus lived; and many others. The evidence unearthed all point to a Jesus who lived around the first century, who he spent his early years in Nazareth and with constant access to the city of Sepphoris (Evans, 2012; Evans, 2001). Scholars such as Craig (2000) also cite the work of Paley, who put forward the testimonies of ancient figures of the authenticity of the Biblical Gospels, and therefore of the historical authenticity of the life of Jesus Christ. Clement of Rome for instance cites Matthew’s recording of the words of Jesus as being authentic. Barnabas’ epistle does the same, and on to many other historical figures who have all made references to the gospels, during their time and on through time. They all said that the gospels are authoritative and genuine. Other attributions by ancient men of integrity all point to the historical Jesus being real: Ignatius cites John and Matthew; Polycarp kept referring to the works of the New Testament, and he personally knew John the disciple alongside other eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus; Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and many other ancient figures of great scholarship and sincerity all the way down to Eusebius. They all cite the gospels as a kind of fundamental basis of truth and a primary source material for the life and sayings of Jesus Christ. All of these ancient figures and saints attest to the historical reality of Jesus (Craig, 2000, pp. 31-32). Following another line of evidence, even those who were against the early Christian church are said to have validated the life of Jesus, via attacks on the gospels themselves or on the early church. The historical figure Celsus, for one, validates Jesus’ historicity by making the admission that it was the apostles who possessed authorship of the gospels. He did not deny that the apostles had a close first-hand relationship with Jesus. Through this Celsus validates the historical Jesus. Julian and Porphyry referred to the gospels too, in formulating their attacks on the Christian church. In so doing they validate rather than question the gospel accounts of the life and words of Jesus Christ as being historically true (Craig, 2000, pp. 33-34). Paley also uses another line of evidence to fortify the evidence for the historical Jesus, This is by affirming the authenticity of the gospels as first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. This line of evidence consists of affirmations of the gospels’ authenticity by those who question the authenticity of other epistles from the time. For instance, Origen pointed to the gospels as being indisputable first-hand accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. He stressed The Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel according to Mark in this process. Eusebius also did the same, noting that the gospels were to be regarded as authentic and apart from other epistles whose authenticity is more suspect and less established. By highlighting the gospels in this way, and placing great importance on them, these ancient figures validate the historical existence of Jesus (Craig, 2000, p. 33). References Bible Gateway (2014). Holy Bible New International Version. Retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com Craig, W. (2000). The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Wipf and Stock Publishers/Google Books. Retrieved from books.google.com Ehrman, B. (2012). The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins/Google Books. Retrieved from books.google.com Evans, C. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. BRILL/ Google Books. Retrieved from books.google.com Evans, C. (2013). Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. Westminster John Knox Press/Google Books. Retrieved from books.google.com Read More