Did Jesus Exist? An Essential Guide to the Evidence Jesus Existed
James H. Charlesworth summarizes the historical evidence of Jesus
Read the full review by John Merrill.
The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide
by James H. Charlesworth
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008), 131 pp., $18 (softcover)
The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide
Merrill finds Charlesworth’s discussion of Jesus’ beliefs in the context of Second Temple Judaism particularly valuable for answering the question, “Did Jesus exist?” As argued by Charlesworth, concepts like grace, forgiveness and belief in resurrection were well developed within Jewish thought by the time of Jesus’ ministry. The historical evidence of Jesus illustrates that earliest Christianity was very much a “Jewish phenomenon.” But as the historical evidence of Jesus also shows, Jesus’ message cannot be easily identified with the teachings of other Jewish groups.
New Testament and Dead Sea Scroll scholar James H. Charlesworth summarizes the historical evidence of Jesus and answers that all-important question: Did Jesus exist?
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Nobody has mentioned the best proof (for non-Christians) that Jesus existed. He is specifically mentioned in TWO prominent non-Christian sources : the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, neither particularly sympathetic to Christianity. There are 4 facts to be drawn from these 2 sources: 1) Jesus existed,2) he had a following, 3) he was executed by the Roman authorities in Judea and 4) his following continued past his death.
Nobody has mentioned the best proof (for non-Christians) that Jesus existed. He is specifically mentioned in TWO prominent non-Christian sources : the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, neither particularly sympathetic to Christianity. There are 4 facts to be drawn from these 2 sources: 1) Jesus existed,2) he had a following, 3) he was executed by the Roman authorities in Judea and 4) his following continued past his death.
And He did speak about military and was great! For your information, Mr. Rabbi, you didn’t connect the dots (like when Jesus says Matthew 9:13, people don’t obey, and as a result they Murdered Him, basically (Matthew 12:7) or that all The prophecies came true. . .and please see and connect. The claim that with Messiah’s reign will bring in everlasting peace to David’s throne is spiritual because David’s throne’s curse says sword every generation because David (had murderous thought followed) murdered the man for his wife. And when you have connected, welcome! Thanks for reading 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Stop. He wasn’t married, that’s aberration, how about I say you two guys were married? He didn’t give himself in marriage, neither did any. It is written, it is written, He did not commit, He did not give himself (other translations, too) unto men John 2:24.
This is mostly a comment on the above comments by others.I’ll start with the claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem.Micah 5:2 was never,ever a prophesy about where the Messiah was to be born.Verse 2 is pulled out of context with surrounding verses and made to seem a prophecy by the writer of Matthew.
If you read Micah 5:1-6 in context this is about a military leader,which Jesus never was.Verse 1 mentions troops,v.6 shows the land of Assyria wasted by war.The 2 words Bethlehem Ephratah when connected together never means the town of Bethlehem it means the man named Bethlehem and the cult of Bethlehem Ephratah mentioned in Deuteronomy and Ruth,it is not a prophecy of where the Messiah was to be born.If you notice in Matt.2:6 the writer of Matthew(whoever he was)deliberately leaves out the word Ephratah and substitutes the word Juda,making it seem to be about the town of Bethlehem.The writer of Matthew screws up a lot of things in the book of Matthew.I was going to type more but i am not sure how long comments can be.Anyone responding to this email forward it to me at my email address above.Thanks.
Jay Osborne
I´d like to hear something from Dr. John Meier about this topic (Jesus was not born in Bethlehem).
I´d like to hear something from Dr. John Meier about this topic (Jesus was not born in Bethlehem).
As for Talipot tome his opinion is nothing but provisional interpretation based on his own irrational bias but offers zero actual evidence of such a claim and Krzysztof should really not get hung up on Dan Browns fiction.
Paul S.
As for Talipot tome his opinion is nothing but provisional interpretation based on his own irrational bias but offers zero actual evidence of such a claim and Krzysztof should really not get hung up on Dan Browns fiction.
Paul S.
Jesus’ biography is important. Whether He is the Son of God, of a virgin birth, performed miracles, resisted temptation, that He died and rose from the dead. Any other details of His life that were prophesied (that includes His birthplace).
Jesus’ biography is important. Whether He is the Son of God, of a virgin birth, performed miracles, resisted temptation, that He died and rose from the dead. Any other details of His life that were prophesied (that includes His birthplace).
The biography of Jesus is not important. His teaching is important. It was simply a restating of what should have been learned from the Torah. More important than his teaching is that he lived and he lived the life he taught.
The biography of Jesus is not important. His teaching is important. It was simply a restating of what should have been learned from the Torah. More important than his teaching is that he lived and he lived the life he taught.
Knowledge about Jesus’ (family) origins is not finally answered by R.E. Brown ; the search to clarify the historical record continues. Galilean archaeologists Mordechai Aviam and Uzi Leibner have clarified that a major immigration from Judea into the Galilee occurred around 100 BCE (if memory serves, Leibner proposes two waves of settlement), replacing sparse but significant non-Jewish settlements (e.g., Kh. Qana). Obviously Judean settlers would have left behind family relations and brought necessary skills to create habitable space. This settlement of Judeans is compatible with the strong connections of 1st century Galileans to Judean traditions (e.g., mikva’ot and stone vessels). This Judean connection may become more prominent in future studies if the menorah carved into the stone table of the Magdala synagogue is convincingly dated to the 1st century by its excavator, Dina Avshalom-Gorni. My point is that to assert “Jesus was not born in Bethlehem” may become an inadequate explanation of the accumulating evidence of 1st century life in Israel. Said another way, it is entirely possible that Jesus of Nazareth possibly had family relations in Judea, including Bethlehem. [I am not suggesting this historical and archaeological information proves Jesus was born in Bethlehem.]