Editing Historicity of the Bible (section)

==New Testament==

===Historicity of Jesus===
{{main|Historicity of Jesus|Split of early Christianity and Judaism}}
The majority of modern scholars of antiquity agree that [[Historicity of Jesus|Jesus existed historically]],{{efn|In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, [[Bart Ehrman]] wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".<ref>{{cite book|first=Bart|last=Ehrman|year=2011|title=Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are|isbn=978-0-06-207863-6 |url=https://archive.org/details/forged_ehrm_2011_000_10544376 |url-access=registration|publisher=HarperCollins |page=[https://archive.org/details/forged_ehrm_2011_000_10544376/page/n298 285]}}</ref> [[Richard A. Burridge]] states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".<ref>{{cite book|title=Jesus Now and Then|first1=Richard A.|last1=Burridge|first2=Graham|last2=Gould|year=2004|isbn=978-0-8028-0977-3|page=[https://archive.org/details/jesusnowthen0000burr/page/34 34]|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|url=https://archive.org/details/jesusnowthen0000burr/page/34}}</ref> [[Robert M. Price]] does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first= Robert M.|last= Price|title= Jesus at the Vanishing Point|encyclopedia= The Historical Jesus: Five Views|editor-last1= Beilby|editor-last2= Eddy|year= 2009|publisher= InterVarsity|isbn= 978-0-8308-7853-6|editor-first= James K.|pages= 55, 61|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA55|editor2-first= Paul R.|access-date= August 14, 2015|archive-date= September 7, 2015|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150907112540/https://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA55|url-status= live}}</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James D. G. Dunn]] calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus|encyclopedia=Sacrifice and Redemption|first= Stephen W.|last= Sykes |year=2007| publisher= Cambridge University Press| isbn= 978-0-521-04460-8|pages=35–36}}</ref> [[Michael Grant (author)|Michael Grant]] (a [[classicist]]) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".<ref name=Grant1977>{{cite book|first=Michael|last=Grant|title=Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels|publisher=Scribner's|year=1977|isbn=978-0-684-14889-2|page=[https://archive.org/details/jesushistoriansr00gran/page/200 200]|url=https://archive.org/details/jesushistoriansr00gran/page/200}}</ref> [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.<ref>{{cite book|author=Robert E. Van Voorst|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC|title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|year=2000|isbn=978-0-8028-4368-5|page=16}}</ref> Writing on ''[[The Daily Beast]]'', [[Candida Moss]] and Joel Baden state that "there is nigh universal consensus among biblical scholars - the authentic ones, at least - that Jesus was, in fact, a real guy"<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/so-called-biblical-scholar-says-jesus-a-made-up-myth|title = So-Called 'Biblical Scholar' Says Jesus a Made-Up Myth|newspaper = The Daily Beast|date = October 5, 2014|last1 = Baden|first1 = Candida Moss}}</ref>|name=exist}} that he was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], and was crucified by order of Roman prefect [[Pontius Pilate]].<ref name="JDunn339">''Jesus Remembered'' by James D. G. Dunn 2003 {{ISBN|0-8028-3931-2}} page. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".</ref><ref name="Hertzog1">''Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus'' by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) {{ISBN|0664225284}} pp. 1–6</ref><ref name="autogenerated145">{{cite book|title=Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography|author=Crossan, John Dominic|publisher=HarperOne|isbn=0-06-061662-8|year=1995|page=[https://archive.org/details/jesusrevolutio00cros/page/145 145]|url=https://archive.org/details/jesusrevolutio00cros|quote=That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.}}</ref>  The "[[quest for the historical Jesus]]" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s, with the work of [[J. D. Crossan]],<ref>Crossan, J. D. "The Historical Jesus: A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," HarperOne, 1993, {{ISBN|0060616296}}</ref> [[James D. G. Dunn]],<ref>James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 2003"</ref> [[John P. Meier]],<ref>John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols., the most recent volume from Yale University Press, 2016"</ref> [[E. P. Sanders]]<ref>Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1996, {{ISBN|0141928220}}</ref> and [[N. T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T. "Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God", Vol. 2, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997, {{ISBN|0800626826}}</ref> being the most widely read and discussed. Other works on the matter were published by [[Dale Allison]],<ref>{{Cite book|last=Allison|first=Dale C.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vb2bdc27AOoC&q=jesus+of+nazareth+millenarian|title=Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet|date=1998|publisher=Fortress Press|isbn=978-1-4514-0556-9|language=en}}</ref> [[Bart D. Ehrman]],<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ehrman|first=Bart D.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c9K_6NN3llcC&q=jesus+of+nazareth+apocalyptic|title=Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium|date=1999|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-983943-8|language=en}}</ref> [[Richard Bauckham]]<ref name="Bauckham">{{cite book|last=Richard|first=Bauckham|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tE8xDwAAQBAJ&q=jesus+and+the+eyewitnesses|title=Jesus and the Eyewitnesses |edition=2nd|date=2017|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-7431-3}}</ref> and [[Maurice Casey]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Casey|first=Maurice|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&q=jesus+of+nazareth:+an+independent+historian|title=Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching|date=2010-12-30|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-64517-3|language=en}}</ref>

The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, the [[Pauline epistles]], are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.<ref name="A Marginal Jew">[[John P. Meier]], ''[[A Marginal Jew]]'' Volume I, Doubleday, 1991.</ref>

The discovery of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] has shed light into the context of [[Roman Judea|1st century Judea]], noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example, the expectation of the coming [[messiah]], the beatitudes of the [[Sermon on the Mount]] and much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Fitzmyer |first=Joseph A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9d6gq_bR1AIC&pg=PA28 |title=The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins |date=2000-03-03 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |isbn=978-0-8028-4650-1 |pages=28ff |language=en}}</ref> This has had the effect of centering [[Early Christianity]] much more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that [[Rabbinic Judaism]] and Early Christianity are only two of the many strands which survived until the [[First Jewish–Roman War|Jewish revolt]] of 66 to 70 CE.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E7DF1E3BF932A35757C0A96E958260 | work=The New York Times | title=BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Looking for Jesus and Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls | first=Richard | last=Bernstein | date=April 1, 1998 | access-date=May 25, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Shanks |first=Hershel |url=http://archive.org/details/understandingdea00shan |title=Understanding the Dead Sea scrolls : a reader from the Biblical archaeology review |date=1992 |publisher=New York : Random House |others=Internet Archive |isbn=978-0-679-41448-3}}</ref>

Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught in the Galilean countryside {{circa|30&nbsp;CE}}, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.<ref name="A Marginal Jew 2">Meier, John P. ''A Marginal Jew'', Vol. II, Doubleday, 1994, {{ISBN|0300140339}}</ref>

====Miracles of Jesus====
{{further|Miracles of Jesus}}

Scholars are divided on the matter of miracles with no consensus on their historicity; some ruling them out a priori, others defending the possibility of miracles, and others defending them outright.<ref>Beilby, James K.; Rhodes Eddy, Paul, eds. (2009). "Introduction". The Historical Jesus: Five Views. IVP Academic. pp. 38–39. {{ISBN|978-0830838684}}. "Contrary to previous times, virtually everyone in the field today acknowledges that Jesus was considered by his contemporaries to be an exorcist and a worker of miracles. However, when it comes to historical assessment of the miracles tradition itself, the consensus quickly shatters. Some, following in the footsteps of Bultmann, embrace an explicit methodological naturalism such that the very idea of a miracle is ruled out a priori. Others defend the logical possibility of miracle at the theoretical level, but, in practice, retain a functional methodological naturalism, maintaining that we could never be in possession of the type and/or amount of evidence that would justify a historical judgment in favor of the occurrence of a miracle. Still others, suspicious that an uncompromising methodological naturalism most likely reflects an unwarranted metaphysical naturalism, find such a priori skepticism unwarranted and either remain open to, or even explicitly defend, the historicity of miracles within the Jesus tradition."</ref> New Testament scholar [[Bart Ehrman]] argues that though some historians believe that miracles have happened and others do not, due to the limitations of the sources, it is not possible for historians to affirm or deny them. He states "This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.<ref>Ehrman, Bart D. (2001). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0195124743}}. "I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe."</ref> According to [[Mike Licona]], among general historians there are some postmodern views of historiography that are open to the investigation of miracles.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Licona |first1=Michael R. |title=Historians and Miracle Claims |journal=Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |date=20 November 2014 |volume=12 |issue=1–2 |pages=106–129 |doi=10.1163/17455197-01202002}}</ref>

====Burial====

{{further|Burial of Jesus}}
In the gospel accounts, the resurrection tradition appears in [[Mark 16]], [[Matthew 28]], [[Luke 24]], and [[John 20]] to [[John 21|21]] where the risen Jesus appears to different people after [[burial of Jesus|his tomb]] was [[empty tomb|found empty]] by women. A topic of debate among scholars is whether Jesus was ever buried in a tomb, and if such a tomb was indeed found empty. An argument in favor of a decent burial before sunset is the Jewish custom, based on the Torah, that the body of an executed person should not remain on the tree where the corpse was hung for public display, but be buried before sunrise. This is based on {{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy|21:22-23|NRSV}}, but also attested in the Temple Scroll of the Essenes, and in [[Josephus]]' ''Jewish War'' 4.5.2§317, describing the burial of crucified Jewish insurgents before sunset.<ref>Dijkhuizen, Petra (2011). "Buried Shamefully: Historical Reconstruction of Jesus' Burial and Tomb". Neotestamentica 45:1 (2011) 115-129</ref><ref>Dunn, James D.G. (2003b), Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 782</ref>

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.<ref>Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, p. 82-88</ref><ref>Crossan, John Dominic (2009). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 143</ref> Ehrman argues that crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible", and the body was normally left on the stake to be eaten by animals.<ref>ibid. p.85</ref> Ehrman further argues that criminals were usually buried in common graves,<ref>ibid. p.86</ref> and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed for Jesus to be buried.<ref>ibid. p.87</ref>

In contrast, [[James Douglas Grant Dunn|James Dunn]] argues that the burial tradition is "one of the oldest pieces of tradition we have", referring to 1 Cor. 15.4; burial was in line with Jewish custom as prescribed by Deut. 21.22-23 and confirmed by Josephus War; cases of burial of crucified persons are known, as attested by the [[Jehohanan|Jehohanan burial]]; Joseph of Arimathea "is a very plausible historical character"; and "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".<ref>Dunn, James D.G. (2003b), Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 781-783</ref> Similarly, [[Dale Allison]], reviewing the arguments of Crossan and Ehrman, considers their assertions strong but "find[s] it likely that a man named Joseph, probably a Sanhedrist, from the obscure Arimathea, sought and obtained permission from the Roman authorities to make arrangements for Jesus’ hurried burial."<ref>Allison, Dale C. Jr. (2021). ''The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History'' p. 112</ref>

According to religion professor John Granger Cook, there are historical texts that mention mass graves, but they contain no indication of those bodies being dug up by animals. There is no mention of an open pit or shallow graves in any Roman text. There are a number of historical texts outside the gospels showing the bodies of the crucified dead were buried by family or friends. Cook writes that "those texts show that the narrative of Joseph of Arimethaea's burial of Jesus would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=John Granger |title=Crucifixion and Burial |journal=New Testament Studies |date=April 2011 |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=193–213 |doi=10.1017/S0028688510000214|s2cid=170517053 }}</ref>

====Empty tomb and resurrection appearances====
{{further|Empty tomb|Resurrection of Jesus}}

Scholars have tackled the question of establishing what contents of the resurrection tradition are historically probable. For example, it is widely accepted among New Testament scholars that Jesus' followers soon came to believe they had seen him resurrected shortly after his death.<ref>Allison, D. 2005. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters. p. 283 "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection."</ref><ref>Ehrman, B. 1999. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. p. 230-231 "That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know."</ref><ref>Sanders, E. 1995. The Historical Figure of Jesus "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."</ref><ref>Ludemann, G. 1996. What Really Happened? p. 80 "After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it. They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ."</ref><ref>Fuller, R. 1965. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. p. 142 "Even the most skeptical historian” must do one more thing: “postulate some other event” that is not the disciples’ faith, but the reason for their faith, in order to account for their experiences.  Of course, both natural and supernatural options have been proposed."</ref> [[Robert W. Funk|Robert Funk]] writes that "the disciples thought that they had witnessed Jesus’ appearances, which, however they are explained, “is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."<ref>Funk, R. 1998. The Acts of Jesus. p. 466</ref>

Most scholars believe that John wrote independently of Mark and that the [[Gospel of Mark]] and the [[Gospel of John]] contain two independent attestations of an empty tomb, which in turn suggests that both used already-existing sources<ref>Aune, David (2013). Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity, p. 169</ref> and appealed to a commonly held tradition, though Mark may have added to and adapted that tradition to fit his narrative.<ref>Engelbrecht, J. “The Empty Tomb (Lk 24:1–12) in Historical Perspective.” Neotestamentica, vol. 23, no. 2, 1989, p. 245.</ref> Other scholars have argued that the [[Apostle Paul]] is aware of an empty tomb in his earlier creed in [[First Corinthians|1 Cor. 15]] and thereby corroborating the gospel accounts.<ref>''Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15. Journal for New Testament Studies.,'' pp. 56-58, John Granger Cook</ref><ref>The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5. Journal for New Testament Studies, p.498, James Ware</ref>

Scholars have identified legendary or unoriginal details within the resurrection tradition. For example, the story of the guards at the tomb in [[Matthew 27]] is "widely regarded as an apologetic legend" meant to refute Jewish critics.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-guard-at-the-tomb|title=The guard at the tomb, ReasonableFaith.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112035109/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-guard-at-the-tomb |archive-date=2013-11-12 }}</ref><ref>Ancient Christian Gospels Koester, Helmut; Trinity Press, (1992) pg 237.</ref> Quoting a published dissertation on the empty tomb tradition in Mark, [[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."<ref>Mike Licona, The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus:
Historiographical Considerations in the Light of Recent Debates, p.324</ref>

According to [[Geza Vermes]], "had the accounts been the 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.” Moreover, they would have gotten the number of women in the various narratives correct. In short, had the narratives been the result of complete invention, they would have been more uniform and they would have included credible witnesses.<ref>Geza Vermes, ''The Resurrection: History and Myth'', p. 140-141</ref><ref>Mike Licona, The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus: Historiographical Considerations in the Light of Recent Debates, p. 331</ref> In contrast, [[Bart D. Ehrman]] rejects the story of the empty tomb, and argues that "an empty tomb had nothing to do with [belief in the resurrection] [...] an empty tomb would not produce faith". Ehrman argues that the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, p. 90,98</ref>

As with miracles, there is no single approach by scholars to the question of the [[resurrection of Jesus]] and if it really happened or not. "[[Historical Jesus]]" scholars in general tend to avoid the topic since many believe the matter to be about faith, or lack thereof.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bockmuehl |first=Markus |editor-last=Bockmuehl|editor-first=Markus|title=The Cambridge Companion to Jesus|chapter=7. Resurrection |date=2001|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=9780521796781|page=103|quote=Nevertheless, what is perhaps most surprising is the extent to which contemporary scholarly literature on the ‘historical Jesus’ has studiously ignored and downplayed the question of the resurrection...But even the more mainstream participants in the late twentieth-century ‘historical Jesus’ bonanza have tended to avoid the subject of the resurrection – usually on the pretext that this is solely a matter of ‘faith’ or of ‘theology’, about which no self-respecting historian could possibly have anything to say. Precisely that scholarly silence, however, renders a good many recent ‘historical Jesus’ studies methodologically hamstrung, and unable to deliver what they promise...In this respect, benign neglect ranks alongside dogmatic denial and naive credulity in guaranteeing the avoidance of historical truth.}}</ref> Nevertheless, scholars have sought to make their own cases for and against the historicity of the resurrection. Skeptical scholars generally argue that the resurrection appearances were [[Vision theory of Jesus' appearances|caused by hallucinations]].<ref>Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, p. 98, 101</ref><ref>Vermes, Geza. The Resurrection. pp. 148–152</ref><ref>Geza, Vermes. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. p. 112.</ref><ref>Paula Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ Yale university Press. pp. 133–134</ref> For example, [[Gerd Lüdemann]] argues that [[St. Peter|Peter]] had a vision of Jesus, induced by his feelings of guilt for betraying Jesus. The vision elevated this feeling of guilt, and Peter experienced it as a real appearance of Jesus, raised from dead.<ref name="Ehrman.Lüdemann">Bart Ehrman (5 October 2012), [https://ehrmanblog.org/gerd-ludemann-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus-for-members/ ''Gerd Lüdemann on the Resurrection of Jesus'']</ref><ref>Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, p. 190</ref> However, scholars such as [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Dale Allison]], among others, argue that hallucinations would not lead or correspond to a belief in resurrection.<ref>Wright, N. T. Resurrection of the Son of God. Spck Publishing, 2003, p. 690-691 "precisely because such encounters [visions of the dead] were reasonably well known [...] they [the disciples] could not possibly, by themselves, have given rise to the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead [...] Indeed, such visions meant precisely, as people in the ancient and modern worlds have discovered, that the person was dead, not that they were alive".</ref><ref>Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: the Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. 324-325, "If there was no reason to believe that his [Jesus's] solid body had returned to life, no one would have thought him, against expectation, resurrected from the dead. Certainly visions of or perceived encounters with a postmortem Jesus would not by themselves, have supplied such reason."</ref><ref>Walker, P. 1999. The Weekend That Changed the World. p. 63 "Typical encounters with the recently deceased do not issue in claims about an empty tomb, nor do they lead to the founding of a new religion. And they certainly do not typically eat and drink, and they are not seen by crowds of up to five hundred people."</ref><ref>Bryan, C. 2011. The Resurrection of the Messiah. p. 169 "Everyone in the ancient world took it for granted that people had strange experiences of encountering dead people. They knew at least as much as we do about visions, ghosts, dreams, and the fact that when somebody is grieving over a person who has just died, they sometimes see, briefly, a figure that seems to be like that person appearing to them. This is not a modern invention or discovery; ancient literature is full of it. They had language for that sort of phenomena, and that language was not ‘resurrection.’ They described these situations as a kind of angelic experience."</ref> In contrast to the skeptical view, Christian biblical scholars typically argue for a historical, physical resurrection of Jesus based on biblical evidence.<ref>Blomberg, Craig L. (1987), The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd Ed, 2007.</ref><ref>N.T. Wright (2003), Resurrection of the Son of God</ref> For example, scholars such as [[Mike Licona]] argue that the diversity of different witnesses, such as skeptics Paul and James, are of important value to historians and, writing further, that attempts to downplay such value don't work.<ref>Mike Licona, The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus:
Historiographical Considerations in the Light of Recent Debates (2008), p. 306-324</ref> According to Wright, there is substantial unanimity among the early Christian writers (first and second century) that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead.<ref>Wright, N.T. (2003), The Resurrection of the Son of God, pp.9-10</ref>

===Historicity of the Gospels===
{{main|Historical reliability of the Gospels}}
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical [[gospel]] accounts were written between 70 and 100,<ref name=r2>Mack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, {{ISBN|0060655186}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "[[Q document|Q]]", [[Logia]] or ''sayings gospels'', the passion account or other earlier literature (See [[List of Gospels]]). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses<ref name="Bauckham" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Byrskog |first=Samuel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=izHwuveIr4sC |title=Story as History - History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History |date=2000 |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |isbn=978-3-16-147305-0}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} although this view is disputed by other scholars.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-03-05 |title=Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman |url=http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf |access-date=2023-05-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090305053738/http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf |archive-date=2009-03-05 }}</ref>

Some scholars believe that the [[Gospel of Mark]] shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance from the narrated events;<ref>Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Danske selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.</ref>{{Page needed|date=July 2021}}<ref>Nineham, Dennis, ''Saint Mark'', Westminster Press, 1978, {{ISBN|0664213448}}, p. 193</ref><ref>McDonald, Lee Martin and Porter, Stanley. ''Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature'', Hendrickson Publishers, 2000, p. 286 {{ISBN|1565632664}}</ref> however, opinion varies, and scholars such as [[Craig Blomberg]] accept the more traditional view.<ref>Strobel, Lee. "The Case for Christ". 1998. Chapter one, an interview with Blomberg, {{ISBN|0310209307}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} 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.{{sfn|Lloyd|2021|p=1}} The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.<ref name="hc">{{Cite book |last=Hurtado |first=Larry W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZSR_CQXQdtUC&pg=PA25 |title=Text-critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark |date=1981 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |isbn=978-0-8028-1872-0 |pages=25}}</ref> This may be attributed to the influence that [[Saint Peter]], a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Biblical literature {{!}} Definition, Types, Significance, Survey, & Development {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=www.britannica.com}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}} It is commonly thought that the writers of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke]] used Mark as a [[Markan Priority|source]], with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.<ref name="hc"/>

===Historicity of Acts===
{{main|Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles}}
Archaeological inscriptions and other independent sources show that Acts contains some accurate details of 1st century society with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. However, the historicity of the depiction of [[Paul the Apostle]] in Acts is contested. Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.<ref name=Brit>{{cite book |last1=Cain |first1=Seymour |display-authors=etal |title=Britannica.com Online |chapter-url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73440/The-Acts-of-the-Apostles?anchor=ref598122 |access-date=15 November 2018 |language=en |chapter=Biblical literature}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}} Acts differs from Paul's letters on important issues, such as the [[Paul of Tarsus and Judaism|Law]], Paul's own [[Apostles in the New Testament|apostleship]], and his relation to the [[Early centers of Christianity#Jerusalem|Jerusalem church]].<ref name=Brit/>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}} Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.<ref name=Harris>{{cite book |last1=Harris |first1=Stephen|author-link=Stephen L Harris |title=Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Introduction |date=1985 |publisher=Mayfield Pub. Co |isbn=978-0874846966 |edition= 2nd}}</ref>{{rp|316}}<ref name=Hornik2017>{{cite book |last1=Hornik |first1=Heidi J. |last2=Parsons |first2=Mikeal C. |title=The Acts of the Apostles through the centuries |date=2017 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |isbn=9781118597873 |edition= 1st}}</ref>{{rp|10}}