2. Did Jesus Ever Live?

Very few scholars hold the view that Jesus never lived. This conclusion is generally regarded as a blatant misuse of the available historical data. Even Rudolf Bultmann, in his program of demythologizing the New Testament, said, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.”

However, this idea is a persistent one and does appear from time to time. This especially seems to be the case with more popular treatments of the life of Jesus. What would such an argument look like? Here we will examine the views of two scholars who hold such a position.

G.A. Wells

In several recent writings,

G.A. Wells has explained his position that Jesus may be a historical personage, although an obscure one. He even asserts the possibility that Jesus never existed at all, but that New Testament authors patterned his story after the ancient mystery religions.

A central theme in Wells’ writings is the chronological order of the New Testament books, an arrangement that supposedly reveals much Christological development. Wells delineates four stages, the earliest being Paul’s epistles, all of which were written before AD 60. These are followed by the non-Pauline canonical epistles, then the pastoral epistles and non-canonical writings of Ignatius, with the fourth stage being the Gospels. With the exception of Paul’s epistles, Wells believes that the rest of these books are rather late. He dates the last three stages between AD 70 and 120.

Wells believes that the comparative lack of historical details about Jesus in Paul’s writings meant that he knew virtually nothing about Jesus’ life, including neither the time of his birth, death, nor when the reported resurrection appearances occurred. Paul is said to have conceived of Jesus as “a supernatural being who spent a brief and obscure period on earth in human form and was crucified,” perhaps even centuries before Paul’s own time.

The second stage of New Testament writings, the non-Pauline epistles, denotes a slight shift in thinking. They assert that Jesus lived on earth recently, an element that Wells believes is absent from Paul altogether. The pastoral epistles and Ignatius’ non-canonical writings indicate a later stage in the early second century when Jesus was linked with the governorship of Pilate, meeting his death at Roman hands. The Gospels, which are more-or-less fabricated, represent the fourth stage in which there is an interest in a full history of Jesus. According to Wells, the early church simply accepted any reconstruction of Jesus’ life as long as there was no conflict with other well-established beliefs. Mark was the earliest Gospel (AD 90), followed by Matthew and Luke, with John being the last one written (early second century).

Armed with his own reconstruction, Wells concludes that the historical facts of Jesus’ life were mostly a later addition to the New Testament, since Paul, the author of the earliest books, did not know and was not too interested in such details. Neither did the earliest Christians emphasize the historical Jesus, but only the divine Christ who was little different from the mystery gods of other ancient peoples. Besides the mystery religions, Jewish wisdom concepts helped to inspire the early picture of Jesus.

It is thus possible that Jesus never existed at all or, if he did, that he attracted very little attention. At any rate, Christianity got its start, according to Wells, without any contact with a historical Jesus who supposedly died about 30 AD, because “only in later documents is his sojourn on earth assigned to a specific time and place.” Nothing precise was known about him, since no firsthand information is presented in the New Testament.

1. Early interest in historical Jesus

Of the numerous problems with Wells’ thesis, we will mention five major points here. First and perhaps most important, the earliest books of the New Testament exhibit sufficient interest in the life of the historical Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection. This includes the preservation of eyewitness testimony to these facts.

It is no coincidence that Paul is the author who includes one of the most important indications of this interest in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.,

where he incorporates a very early Christian creed that is much older than the book in which it appears. Such early traditions appear frequently in the New Testament and consist of oral teachings and proclamations that were repeated until recorded in the book itself. These creeds, then, actually predate the New Testament writings in which they occur. This particular tradition reports the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus, reciting that he rose the third day after his death. A list of persons to whom he appeared then follows.

This confession links the historical life of Jesus, and the central Christian message of the gospel, in particular (vv. 3-4), with those eyewitnesses who testified to his resurrection appearances, beginning on the third day after his death (vv. 5-7). In addition, Paul had not only met some of these witnesses personally (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9), but he explains that his message concerning these facts is identical with their eyewitness testimony (1 Cor. 15:11; cf. 15:14, 15). So the eyewitnesses of Jesus, and especially of his resurrection, were relating the same findings as Paul. It is crucially important that this information is very close to the actual events, and therefore cannot be dismissed as late material or as hearsay evidence. Critics not only admit this data, but were the first ones to recognize the early date.

Paul shows just how much he values the historical facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection appearances when he points out that, if they are not true, then there are absolutely no grounds for any distinctly Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:12-19, 32). This early creed and the subsequent testimony disprove Wells’ thesis concerning the lack of early interest in the facts of Jesus’ life, for they demonstrate clearly that Paul is even willing to base the Christian faith on the truthfulness of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

2. Jesus lived in the first century

A second problem proceeds from this discussion. Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before “and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul’s own day, to make resurrection appearances.”

But this is one place where Wells’ thesis is the weakest. We have said that Paul bases his entire message on the facticity of this gospel data, presenting the reports of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ appearances, persons that he knew personally, in order to further corroborate these recent events. That this creed is also very early and close to the actual events further assists in substantiating the testimony. Other portions of Paul’s writings confirm this conclusion, in opposition to Wells.

Paul is also aware of the fact that Jesus lived recently. Paul refers to Jesus’ contemporaries: Cephas and the twelve (1 Cor. 15:5); the apostles, brothers of Christ, and Cephas (1 Cor. 9:5); James, the brother of the Lord, and the apostle Peter (Gal. 1:18-19); the apostles Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:8-9); Peter alone (Gal. 2:11). The best explanation for the phrase “the third day” (1 Cor. 15:3-4) is that Paul had temporal interests in mind, and that these witnesses began to see Jesus three days after he was raised from the dead.

Further, Paul points out that most of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time were still alive when he wrote the book of 1 Corinthians, about AD 55–57. In the evaluation in our next section, we will list other problems of this nature.

Wells’ explanation of these texts is insufficient, as well as being faulty.

For instance, he actually suggests, in describing James as the Lord’s brother, that Paul is referring not to an actual brother (in the sense of a blood relation) but to a group of individuals in the early church called the brethren of the Lord!

Perhaps almost needless to say, several decisive problems plague this supposition. This is far from the most normal way of understanding Paul, either in Galatians 1:19 or 1 Corinthians 9:5. Further, all four Gospel writers did not hesitate to speak of Jesus’ brothers in the clear context of his physical family.

Whether these four volumes were written later or not, they all agree against Wells’ position. Additionally, the ancient historian Josephus calls James “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

This is certainly not a reference to any Jerusalem faction of believers (see discussion below)! Lastly, there is no ancient evidence at all that supports Wells’ position, not to mention the sense one gets of special pleading.

Wells’ explanation is a good example of the informal logical fallacy known as “pettifogging,” where one raises a smoke screen instead of dealing directly with the material. But this is not the same as explaining these historical references to the earthly ministry of Jesus. We may not like what the texts state, but we cannot thereby cause Jesus and his contemporaries to disappear from recent history simply by this type of reductio ad absurdum.

For reasons such as these, New Testament scholars, with virtually no exceptions, recognize the clear meaning of the texts that indicate that Jesus was a contemporary of Paul and the other apostles, having lived recently. While Paul’s epistles do not contain myriads of details about the life of Jesus, there is no reason to claim that he was largely uninterested, either. An impressive compilation of facts concerning Jesus and his ministry, learned from persons who knew him best, can be built from the epistles of Paul alone.

Since Wells recognizes Paul’s major epistles as the earliest and most crucial material here, this information militates against his skeptical position.

3. Ancient mystery religions

The third major problem with Wells’ approach concerns his usage of the ancient mystery religions to explain the early Christian worship of Jesus. Such a reliance on the development of legends was a popular thesis late last century, but has been dismissed today by the majority of researchers, and for good reasons.

The basis for two serious problems with the legend theory has already been mentioned above. Paul’s use of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. reveals that the proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection was both early and dependent on the reports of eyewitness testimony. Thus an adequate account must be made of the report of reliable witnesses that they actually saw Jesus alive after his death. Pannenberg concludes:

Under such circumstances it is an idle venture to make parallels in the history of religions responsible for the emergence of the primitive Christian message about Jesus’ resurrection.

In other words, that it was Paul and the other apostles who had these actual experiences rules out legend as the cause for the resurrection, since the original teaching concerning Jesus’ appearances is based on real eyewitness experiences of something that was seen and not on later legends. These experiences require an adequate explanation.

Even Otto Pfleiderer, an advocate of the mythical thesis almost one hundred years ago, agrees here. He points out that myths cannot provide the direct cause for the resurrection appearances to the disciples, for these occurrences were real experiences linked to historical facts and not legendary parallels.

Other problems also abound with this legendary thesis, examples of which can only be briefly mentioned here. It is common for the similarities with the mystery religions to be reported without also noting the great differences between them and the origins of Christianity. Again, Pfleiderer acknowledges the validity of this concern.

For example, Wells notes the pagan mythical deities who were said to have returned to life on the third day, without mentioning those believed to have regained life on the first, second, or fourth days.

Even more persuasively, there is no known case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions where we have both clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century AD, obviously much later than the Christian message. Whether or not the mystery religions borrowed this aspect from Christianity is not the issue. Rather, it would appear fruitless to charge that the earliest believers were inspired by such later teachings.

Further, the mystery gods were not even historical persons. This is certainly in contrast to the early Christian insistence that its beliefs have solid, factual underpinnings.

Lastly, scholars now realize that there was very little influence from the mystery religions in first century Palestine. Michael Grant notes that this is a major problem with Wells’ thesis: “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”

Other scholars agree with this assessment.

4. Late-dating of the Gospels

A fourth major problem in Wells’ thesis is his late-dating of the Gospels, in conjunction with his belief that no New Testament source prior to AD 90 links the death of Jesus with Pilate. Such dates for the Gospels may have been popular in the nineteenth century, but are abandoned today by the vast majority of critical scholars, and for good reason. Although it is not in the scope of this book to take an in-depth look at the dates of the Gospels, most critical scholars date Mark about AD 65–70, and Matthew and Luke about AD 80–90, which is about twenty to twenty-five years earlier than Wells’ dates. John is usually dated at the end of the first century (AD 90-100) rather than in the second century. Some even accept dates earlier than these, but the vast majority of critical scholars differ with Wells’ conclusions.

Even historians such as Michael Grant accept the earlier dates, again contrary to Wells’ view.

Of course, the issue here is not a battle of how many scholars hold these positions, but the reasons behind their views. Still, if the majority of contemporary scholars is correct over against Wells’ position on the dating of the Gospels, then Wells’ assertion that the New Testament does not link Jesus to Pilate prior to AD 90 is also in error.

Even apart from the issue of dating, Wells employs another highly questionable line of reasoning to explain how the early church unanimously chose Pilate’s name — because “Pilate would naturally come to mind . . . . for he was just the type of person to have murdered Jesus.”

Here we must ask why would the Gospels all agree in this choice of names, even if Pilate did fit the description? Would Herod not be an even better choice? Wells obviously prefers his thesis because it facilitates his four-stage development of the New Testament. Yet his view is not compelling because it conflicts with the facts.

5. Historical methodology

A fifth criticism of Wells’ thesis is his lack of application of normal historical methodology to the Gospel material.

When this is done, historically reliable material about Jesus can be gleaned. Michael Grant specifically notes that this is the major problem with Wells’ thesis:

But, above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, 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.

By normal historical standards used to ascertain other events in ancient history, we can learn about Jesus as well.

Wells postulates that the lateness of the Gospels and the lack of reliable information caused their writers to do much guessing and made them accept almost anything reported about Jesus. Yet we have just seen several ways in which Wells’ lack of application of the historical method has contributed to the major problems with his thesis.

For example, if the majority of critical scholars is right in dating the Gospels earlier than Wells postulates, then these writings are much closer to the events that they record. The basis for the Gospel report of the death and resurrection of Jesus is firmly grounded in history, without being inspired by the mystery religions, again contrary to Wells’ thesis. That eyewitnesses had considerable influence is a definite pointer in the direction of the reliability of the material.

The trustworthiness of the Gospels follows from the earlier dating of the Gospels, especially if we can show that the writers were those who were either eyewitnesses or still in a position to know the truthfulness of their report.

The result of our overview is that the early Christian writings are far different from those envisioned by Wells.

Michael Martin

One of the only scholars to follow G.A. Wells in his thesis about the historical Jesus is philosopher Michael Martin, who makes the claim that we are justified in questioning any but the barest data concerning the historical Jesus.

Martin agrees with the thesis of G.A. Wells that in the earliest layer of Christian teaching, “Jesus is not placed in a historical context and the biographical details of his life are left unspecified.” Rather, most of the well-known particulars such as those in the Gospels were not proclaimed until the end of the first century or later.

Therefore, Martin writes, “a strong prima facie case challenging the historicity of Jesus can be constructed.”

In an intriguing move, however, Martin not only acknowledges the lack of scholarly support for Wells’ thesis, but he even opts not to employ it in the main portion of his book, since it “is controversial and not widely accepted.”

While such a maneuver can be made for other reasons, Martin’s decision does raise an interesting question: is there a possibility that he is perhaps less convinced of Wells’ thesis than he is willing to acknowledge? Perhaps he, too, is aware of some of the serious problems with the entire proposal.

Following Wells, Martin postulates “four layers of Christian thinking,” the earliest of which “consists of Paul’s teaching of ‘Christ crucified’ in which Jesus is not placed in a historical context and the biographical details of his life are left unspecified.”

Wells and Martin do not deny that there are some details about Jesus in these early sources. But the issue concerns whether the New Testament writers knew more than a minimal amount of data about Jesus and whether they even knew that he lived during the time traditionally assigned to him. Martin states: “there is no good evidence that they believed that these events occurred at the beginning of the first century.”

Rather, these details emerged “only at the end of the first century.”

In order to further evaluate this scenario, we will look at the three chief avenues pursued by Martin himself: Paul’s admittedly early information about Jesus, the dating of the Gospels, and extrabiblical sources. It is my contention that Martin errs in an extraordinary number of his central claims, and in each of these areas.

1. The earliest epistles of Paul

Martin admits that from the genuine Pauline letters we do learn some claimed information about Jesus, especially concerning his death and resurrection. In spite of this, Paul does not seem to know many details about Jesus; we cannot even conclude that he knew that Jesus was a first century figure.

Here we are not interested in whether or not Paul was right, but what Paul thought about the chronology of Jesus. However, using only the Pauline epistles that Martin accepts, there is no shortage of data showing that Paul knew Jesus was an earlier contemporary. We have already seen that Jesus died and was raised, appearing to his followers just three days later (1 Cor. 15:3ff.). Those eyewitnesses who saw him afterwards included Peter, Jesus’ disciples, 500 believers, most of whom were still alive, James, and the apostles. Then Paul informs us that he was contemporary with these apostolic witnesses (15:9-11, 14-15).

If there is any doubt on the last point, Paul states that, right after his conversion, at least some of the apostles could still be found in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17). Three years later Paul visited there, and specifically tells us that he spent 15 days with the apostle Peter and also saw “James, the Lord’s brother” (1:18-19). Then, 14 years later, Paul went to Jerusalem again and met with Peter and James, as well as seeing John, the “pillars” of the church (2:1-10). Later, he met with Peter in Antioch (2:11-14).

Plainly, Paul considered himself a contemporary of the other apostles

as well “the Lord’s brothers” (1 Cor. 9:5). Having seen the Lord was a prerequisite for the position of apostle (1 Cor. 9:1; cf. Acts 1:21-22).

Taking these declarations fairly and in a straightforward manner, there are several indications that Paul unquestionably thought of a direct chain from Jesus to the present. Jesus had died recently, as indicated by his resurrection appearances that began three days afterwards to hundreds of persons who were still alive in Paul’s day. Further, not only were Peter and James specifically included in Paul’s list of eyewitnesses, but along with John, they were singled out as apostolic leaders in the early church. James and others are even called the brothers of Jesus.

It is exceptionally difficult to see how anyone could know all this and still agree with Martin: “To be sure, Paul and other earlier epistle writers thought Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. But there is no good evidence that they believed that these events occurred at the beginning of the first century.”

Initially, it does no good (and Martin does not suggest it) to assert that Paul believed items like the resurrection appearances and their proximity to the life of Jesus but that he was mistaken. Although we can argue forcefully against the latter point, it is not the issue here. As Martin says in the words just quoted, the question is precisely whether Paul believed the proximity of these events. So how does Martin answer this material?

He does not really explain the connection between Paul and contemporary apostle-eyewitnesses like Peter and John, or the other apostles. But he does challenge the claim that the James that Paul knew was really the brother of Jesus. Repeating what he terms the “plausible” suggestion of Wells, Martin postulates that, since there were factions in the early church who favored Paul, Apollos, or Peter, “there may well have been one at Jerusalem called the brethren of the Lord, who would have had no more personal experience of Jesus than Paul himself.”

Later, Martin confidently asserts that “it is dubious that ‘James the Lord’s brother’ means ‘James, Jesus’ brother.”

Thus, James would have been the member of a Christian faction called “the brethren of the Lord” that had no physical, familial relation to Jesus!

Having already discussed this suggestion by Wells, we will only summarize our response here. Several decisive problems that plague this interpretation include the most natural way of understanding Paul in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, the testimony of all four Gospel writers, Josephus (who calls James “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”

), as well as the lack of any ancient evidence to support Wells’ position.

One gets the distinct impression in reading the dubious interpretations of Wells and Martin that the point is not to fairly explain Paul’s meaning, but to say anything in order to avoid the clear meaning of the texts. The reason in this instance is plain. If James is the actual brother of Jesus, then this defeats the supposition that Jesus could have lived much earlier and still be believed by early Christians to have appeared in the first century. But the sense of special pleading here is strong. Martin himself appears to recognize the weakness of Wells’ position when he adds: “Wells’s interpretation may seem ad hoc and arbitrary.”

I think most scholars would agree, and for reasons such as these.

2. The dating of the Gospels

Martin devotes just one page to a discussion that is crucial to his thesis — the dating of the four Gospels. Even here he does not present Wells’ arguments, but simply relates what he thinks is the state of current scholarship. His typical approach is to report that the majority of scholars favor a date that is significantly later than most, in fact, actually hold.

A case in point concerns what is usually considered to be the earliest gospel. Martin confidently asserts that Mark is dated from 70–135, and adds that “most biblical scholars date Mark around AD 80.” He provides no grounds other than a citation of a single page in Wells.

However, the dates Martin provides by no means represent the current attitude of “most biblical scholars.” John Drane, quoted approvingly by Martin in the same chapter, lists the most common date for Mark as 60–70,

which is up to 65 years earlier! Guthrie agrees, noting “the confidence of the majority of scholars that Mark must be dated AD 65–70.”

It is certainly true that the views of current scholars do not determine the issue. However, Martin not only likes to cite and summarize scholarly opinion, but his case is hurt by his misunderstandings of the current state of New Testament scholarship.

Unfortunately for Martin, his inaccuracies concerning the Gospels do not end with his late and incorrect datings. He compounds the issue by making other claims that are, at best, misleading. He declares that “Mark was not mentioned by other authors until the middle of the second century.”

Yet he does not discuss the important mention by Papias, usually placed about 25 years earlier, linking this gospel to the apostle Peter.

Further, Martin asserts that Luke (and probably Matthew) was unknown to either Clement of Rome or Ignatius, being known first by Polycarp, whom he dates from 120–135.

However, citations of the sayings of Jesus found in all three synoptic Gospels are found in Clement, while Ignatius cites a text on a resurrection appearance of Jesus found in Luke.

Additionally, while Martin admits that Polycarp knows Matthew and Luke, he dates this ancient writer much later than most others would place him.

On a related matter, Martin charges that Clement “is not clear” about whether the disciples received their instructions from Jesus “during his life on earth,” citing Corinthians 24. But chapter 42 seems quite clear, with a fair reading most likely referring to Jesus’ sojourn on earth: “The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God . . . .”

Jesus and his apostles were contemporaries.

Martin’s radical conclusions are unfounded, but he nonetheless bases still other claims upon them. Contending the possibility that the earliest Gospel was not written “until the beginning of the second century,” he concludes that these books were “not written by eyewitnesses.”

Yet he fails to establish any of these claims.

3. Extrabiblical sources

A last area that Martin investigates is whether sources outside the New Testament provide viable data concerning the historicity of Jesus. But here, once again, Martin’s research exhibits several flaws.

Concerning Josephus’ major reference to Jesus,

Martin thinks there is “almost uniform agreement that this passage is spurious.”

While he is, of course, entitled to his opinion about the current state of scholarship, the endnote is curious. Martin lists five scholars who apparently support his view, while accusing Habermas of holding a dissenting position without being aware of those who oppose him.

Yet, upon closer inspection, at least two of the remaining five scholars cited by Martin actually oppose Martin’s position! While F.F. Bruce explains in the page cited by Martin that words were added to Josephus’ text, the reader who continues will discover that Bruce favors the view that this is an authentic reference to Jesus that records several key facts, including Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Further, Martin seems to miss the fact that John Drane not only disagrees with his thesis, but Drane adds that “most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity” of the majority of the passage.

Thus, with three of six scholars listed by Martin himself disagreeing with him, and Drane saying that most others also object, it is difficult to understand how Martin’s note corroborates his additional conclusion that “this passage is almost universally acknowledged by scholars to be a later Christian interpolation.”

Citing what some call the “Negative Evidence Principle,” Martin seeks to discount the testimony of several extrabiblical sources for Jesus. But one of the conditions for this principle is that “all the available evidence used to support the view that p is true is shown to be inadequate.”

Yet, Martin has not shown this to be the case, especially with Josephus. Questions arise with regard to his treatment of several other non-New Testament sources, as well.

Therefore, Martin is far from proving his declaration that pagan writers present “no reliable evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus.” It simply does not follow that “we are justified in disbelieving that Jesus existed.”

In conclusion, there is a substantial body of data that argues for a historical Jesus who lived early in the first century. We have mentioned a few of the key strands (and we will investigate many others in

). Paul knew of Jesus’ disciples and visited with Peter and John. Another acquaintance, James, was the brother of Jesus. Hundreds who had witnessed the risen Jesus were still alive in Paul’s day. Further, the Gospels are written within a time frame that at least raises the possibility of recording much reliable historical information about Jesus. Certain extrabiblical texts record other data about Jesus, as well. Martin’s charges at each of these points involve arguments that strain the limits of reason and even border on credulity.

While we will turn below to a positive case for the historicity of Jesus, we have argued here that the central tenets of Martin’s theses fail to account for the available data at a very basic level. Many of his problems stem from what might be considered, at best, a failure to assess carefully the available evidence on this topic. Along with Wells, one distinctly gets the sense that this thesis is held in the face of myriads of data to the contrary. That the view lacks scholarly appeal (as readily admitted by Martin himself) is not because some scholars are unwilling to embrace such a radical thesis, but that the conclusions are simply unwarranted.

Summary and Conclusion

Surprisingly few scholars have asserted that Jesus never existed or have attempted to cast almost total doubt on his life and ministry. When such efforts have occurred, they have been met by rare outcries from the scholarly community.

We have seen that these attempts are refuted at almost every turn by the early and eyewitness testimony presented by Paul and others, as well as by the early date of the Gospels. Such evidence caused Charlesworth to conclude specifically concerning Wells’ position: “Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.”

Form Criticism,

Did Jesus Exist?

The Historical Evidence for Jesus

The Humanist,

Did Jesus Exist?,

The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective

Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

regardless of the view one takes,

Did Jesus Exist?,

Antiquities

The Sources for the Life of Christ,

Jesus — God and Man,

The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance and Value in the History of Religion

Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian

Historical and Literary,

Christianity Today,

Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels

Historical and Literary

Jesus — God and Man

New Testament Introduction

Jesus: an Historian’s Review,

Jesus: An Historian’s Review,

Introducing the New Testament

Can We Trust the New Testament?

An Historical Introduction to the New Testament

Sources;

Introducing the New Testament

The Case Against Christianity

Case Against Christianity,

Antiquities

Case Against Christianity,

cannot be doubted

“It is certain,

Introduction to the New Testament,

Case Against Christianity,

Introducing New Testament,

New Testament Introduction,

Case Against Christianity,

Ecclesiastical History,

Case Against Christianity,

Corinthians

Smynaeans

The Apostolic Fathers

Case Against Christianity,

Antiquities

Case Against Christianity,

Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament

Introducing New Testament,

Antiquities (Jesus Within Judaism,

Case Against Christianity,

Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus,

Case Against Christianity,

Sacred Mushroom and the Cross

The Times

Jesus Christ: The Witness of History

Can We Trust the New Testament?

Jesus Within Judaism,

↑ Back to top