There are four essential criteria which, if met by any event recorded in writing, would establish it as truly historical:

A) That the matter of fact be such that people's outward senses (their eyes and ears) may be judges of it;

B) That it be done publicly (in the face of the world).

* These first two rules make it impossible for any such matter of fact to be imposed upon people at the time, because every man's eyes and ears and senses would contradict it.

(These first 2 criteria apply more to the "Conspiracy" theory of the apostles).

C) That not only public monuments (churches, crosses, etc,) be kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions and public observences (The Lord's Supper, Baptism, Sunday sabbath, etc.) be performed;

D) That such monuments, actions and observences, be instituted, and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.

* These last two rules make it impossible for any such matter of fact to be imposed upon people of a later time:

If public monuments, outward actions and public observences were said (lied about) to have been constantly used ever since the reported event was said to have taken place (in the past); and these public monuments, outward actions and observences hadn't existed before the lie was fabricated; people at the time that the lie was fabricated would know them to be false.

They would know that all these munuments, actions and observences were not true if, in fact, they didn't exist.

It is as if a man had written an account of the American Revolution (say, in 1876), and of the celebration of this day [July 4, 1776] from the first (100 years earlier); when, in fact, no revolution was ever heard of, and no one had ever celebrated the Fourth of July.

And since the Fourth of July celebration is well established, it would be impossible to state now that another observence within this celebration had always existed (say, the honoring of a man who claimed he could make himself invisible and did so which enabled him to steal all of the British guns, thus securing the victory for the colonies).

(These last 2 criteria apply more to the "Myth" theory of Jesus).

Keep these "criteria" in mind as you read these next points:

(1) If the same neutral, objective, scientific approach is used on the NT texts as is used on all other ancient documents, then the texts prove remarkably reliable. (See my 1st page).

The state of the NT manuscripts is very good. We have over 500 different copies earlier than AD 500. The next most reliable ancient text we have is the "Iliad", for which we have only 50 copies that date from 500 years or less after its origin.

What is meant here is that by the tightest standards scholars can muster (without eliminating all the other classical works), the NT we have is a trustworthy copy of the original.

(2) The NT manuscripts that we have are mutually reinforcing and consistent. There are very few discrepancies and no really important ones. And all later discoveries of manuscripts have confirmed rather than refuted previously existing manuscripts in every important case.

(3) The dating for the Gospels is early. They were written between A.D. 64 and 85. (30 to 40 years after the events). See the "Evidences" page for more info on this.

(4) The Gospels show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD 70. The Gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time all of which archaeology is constantly validating.

(5) The Stories of Jesus' human weaknesses and of the disciples' faults also bespeak of the Gospels' accuracy. In fictional myths, the main players are usually portrayed as galliant to the end. In the case of a god-man especially he would have most-likely been a warrior who faught bravely. Jesus invited crucifixion. The disciples were total cowards during all this and ran away. Later, they didn't even want to believe that He had risen from the dead and wanted proof.

These are signs of honest accounts of the people involved.

Paul was no doubt the most radically converted man in history. He had once approvingly watched as Stephen was brutally murdered; noe he was willing to be murdered for the same Christian testimony.

Paul gave up his position as an esteemed Jewish leader, a rabbi, and a Pharisee who had studied under the famed teacher Gamaliel.

He gave up the mission to stamp out every vestige of what he considered to be the insidious heresy of Christianity.

In the end, he paid the ultimate price for his testimony - martyrdom.

James was embarrased by Jesus before the resurrected appearance. Afterward, James was willing to die for Jesus.

As the Jewish historian Josephus reports, "James was stoned to death illegally by the Sanhedrin sometime after A.D. 60 for his faith in Christ." Antiquities of the Jews, 20:200

What would it take for a person to die willingly for the belief that one of his family members was God?

Peter, who was once afraid of being exposed as a follower of Christ by a young woman, after the resurrection was transformed into a lion of the faith and suffered a martyr's death.

10,000 Jews - Within weeks of the resurrection, not just once, but an entire community of at least ten thousand Jews were willing to give up the very sociological and theological traditions that had given them their national identity.

(6) There are 4 Gospels not, just 1. They were written by 4 different authors, at 4 different times, probably for 4 different audiences and for 4 somewhat different purposes and emphases. So a lot of cross-checking is possible.

It would have been impossible for forgers to put together so consistent a narrative as that which we find in the Gospels. The Gospels do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies, which indicates their originality (written by eyewitnesses).

There is no attempt at harmonization between the Gospels, such as we might expect from forgers. The only inconsistencies are in chronology (only Luke's Gospel claims to be in order) and accidentals like numbers (e.g., did the women see 1 angel or 2 at the empty tomb?).

(7) There was not enough time for the myth to develop. Several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts about an actual person/people and events surrounding them. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions.

For example - the myths and legends of miracles that developed around other religious founders, such as Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad, each took many generations to pass before the myth surfaced.

The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery (refer to the "Evidences" page. Only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward.

Even so, some scholars still dispute a 1st-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. With these, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth.

If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels!

It is not plausible that such a series of legends could arise in a historic age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of Jesus if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels.

There is no example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within 30 years after the figure's death.

(8) The myth theory would have to contain 2 layers. The 1st layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead.

The 2nd, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

However, there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such 1st layer.

The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus' miracle and resurrection.

Polycard mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he heard Polycarp tell of Jesus' miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection.

Puadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus.

Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ.

No relic of a non-miraculous story exists!

(9) No one could have corrupted all the Gospel manuscripts.

(10) There were many witnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from the purported authors or not. There is no evidence at all of anyone ever opposing the so-called myth of the miraculous Jesus in the name of an earlier merely "human" Jesus.

(11) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. Myths are verbose, the Gospels are "to the point".

There are telltale marks of eyewitness description, like the little detail of Jesus writing in the sand when asked whether to stone an adulteress or not (Jn 8:6). No one knows why this is put in; nothing comes of it. The only explanation is that the writer saw it.

If this detail and others like it throughout all four Gospels were invented, then a 1st-century tax collector (Matthew), a "young man" (Mark), a doctor (Luke), and a fisherman (John) all independently invented a whole new genre of "Realistic Fantasy" 19 centuries before it was reinvented in the 20th!

Let's compare the Gospels to a mythic writing from around that same time to see the stylistic differences. It is the so-called "Gospel of Peter", a forgery from around 125AD which Dominic Crossan insisted was earlier than the four Gospels:

-In this account, the tomb is not only surrounded by Roman guards but also by all the Jewish Pharisees and elders as well as a great multitude from all the surrounding countryside who have come to watch the resurrection. Suddenly in the night there rings out a loud voice in heaven, and 2 men descend from heaven to the tomb. The 2 men come out of the tomb, two of them holding up the 3rd man. The heads of the 2 men reach up into the clouds, but the head of the 3rd man reaches beyond the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks, "Have you preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yes."

The Gospels are set firmly in the real Palestine of the 1st century, and the little details are not picturesque inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic novelist can give.

(12) The claim of Jesus to be God makes sense of his trial and crucifixion. The Jewish sensitivity to blasphemy was unique; no one else would so fanatically insist on death as punishment for claiming divinity.

Throughout the Roman world, the prevailing attitude toward the gods was "the more the merrier." The main reason why most Jews rejected his claim to be the Messiah was that he did not liberate them from Roman political oppression.

Jesus had no political ambitions. His politics can't explain his crucifixion. It was not easy for him to be apolitical. In his day, religion and politics were closely interwoven. But he was not afraid to touch on political issues. Jesus went so far as to forbid his disciples to speak publicly of his miracles because the people wanted to make him king.

The political excuse for his crucifixion was that he was Caesar's rival, which was a lie trumped up to justify his execution, since Roman law did not recognize blasphemy as grounds for execution and the Jews had no legal power to enforce their own religious laws of capital punishment under Roman rule.

(13) Who invented the myth and why? No possible motive can account for this invention. For nearly 300 years Christians were subject to persecution, often tortured and martyred, and hated and oppressed for their beliefs.

And if they didn't know they would be persecuted for their "myth," they certainly would have given it up as soon as they were. Some refused martyrdom, rejecting Christ and worshiping the emporer, to save their lives; nut not one of these ever said Christ was a myth that had been fabricated.

(14) The 1st-century Jews and Christians were not prone to believe in myths. The orthodox were adamantly, even cantankerously and intolerantly, opposed to the polytheistic myths of paganism. No one would be less likely to confuse myth (especially one that didn't coincide with their messianic expectations) and fact than a Jew.

(15) A little detail - The first 2 witnesses of the resurrection were women. In 1st century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb was an invented legend, its inventers surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless.

(16) The myth-makers would have put into Jesus' mouth statements about matters of burning concern to themselves. - On the contrary we find that these issues (such as the Lordship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and His gifts, the controversy over the importance of circumcision, and whether Christians could eat food that had been offered to idols) are conspicuous by their absence.

It shows that the gospel writers were recording things that were true and not making things up that were convenient.

(17) The extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the Gospels to their traditional authors, . . . testimony from the Epistle of barnabas, the Epistile of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, all the way up to Eusebius in A.D. 315 . . . Theophilus, Hippolytus, Origen, Paudratus, Irenaeus, Melito, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian, Caius, Athanasius, Cyril . . . even Christianity's opponents conceded this: Celsus, Porphyry, Emporer Julian.

(18) With a single acception, no apocryphal gospel is ever even quoted by any known author during the first 300 years after Christ. In fact there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four Gospels and Acts were written.

(19) Joseph's being responsible for burying Jesus is very probable. A Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist doing what is right for Jesus is almost inexplicable, given the hostility toward the Jewish leaders responsible for Jesus' death in early Christian writings.

Joseph would have not have been invented in view of Mark's statements that the whole Sanhedrin voted for Jesus' condemnation.

(20) The very existence of the church, founded my monotheistic, law-abiding Jews who none-the-less worshiped on Sunday demands historical causes as well.

In remembrance of the resurrection, the early Christian church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

(21) The sacrificial system was radically transformed by the resurrection as well.

The Jews had been taught from the time of Abraham that they were to sacrifice animals as the symbol of atonement of sins.

However, the followers of Christ suddenly stopped sacrificing. They understood that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled the symbol of the animal sacrifices.

(21) In place of the Passover meal, believers celebrated the Lord's Supper.

Jesus had just been slaughtered in grotesque and humiliating fashion, YET the disciples remembered the broken body and shed blood of Christ with Joy. Only the resurrection can account for that.

(Imagine devotees to John F. Kennedy getting together to celebrate his murder at the hands of Oswald. They may celebrate how wonderful he was, but never his brutal killing.)

(23) The internal dilemma - 2 Peter 1:16 explicitly says it is not myth. If it is myth, it is a lie rather than myth. It is either truth or lie, whether deliberate (conspiracy) or non-deliberate (hallucination).

Once the NT distinguishes myth from fact, it becomes a lie if the resurrection is not fact. This moves the argument to the "Conspiracy" hypothesis and away from the "Myth" hypothesis.

Further thoughts:

Logically, the "myth" theory would have to produce evidence of:

*1. Some original "unaltered" manuscripts

*2. Some later "altered" manuscripts

*3. Some evidence that some government official, acting in an official capacity, modified the former into the later

*4. Some evidence that this was done on a widespread basis or large scale

*5. Some evidence that these roman officials had substantially exclusive control over the publication/copying of the NT texts.

Note: It is NOT ENOUGH to simply produce a 'motive' (e.g. to control people); one must also have some evidence that it:

(1) COULD have occurred, and

(2) DID occur.

Without #3 and #4 above, the theory is "rampant and pure speculation.

Now, the odd thing about this, is that if we have #1 (some unaltered original) from which to determine that an alteration occurred, THEN WE HAVE an 'accurate and reliable' manuscript! In other words, to prove his thesis is to refute it!

If the empire had done alterations (without disposing of all the originals) then we would have the originals with which to base our rejection of the Empire's fabrications!

What this implies is that IF WE HAVE manuscripts that can be dated to PRE-CONSTANTINE years (i.e. in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries), then we, BY DEFINITION, have manuscripts that are 'unaltered' by CONSTANTINE--and hence the conspiracy supposition becomes trivial.

(Not altogether 'untrue', for we DO FIND alterations in later texts--but these changes can be 'weeded out' on the basis of the earlier, 'unaltered ones'.)

Interestingly enough this is EXACTLY the case. Most of our NT texts are based on existing manuscripts that were in existence LONG BEFORE the Constantine deal!

Consider the 'hard data' of textual criticism, archeology, and paleography:

Below are a couple of the major EARLY manuscripts in existence today, with dates and general contents:

First, let me point out that these texts are NOT simply 'tiny fragments'. Let's look at each of the two collections...

The Beatty papyri:
The major papyri in this collection are p45, p46, p47.

* p45: 150-250ad; contains some (or all) of Mt 20, 21, 25, 26; Mr 4-9, 11-12; Lk 6-7, 9-14; Jn 10-11; Acts 4-17.
* p46: 90-175ad; contains some (or all) of Rom 5-6, 8-16; all of I & II Cor, Gal, Eph., Philp., Col, I Thess 1,2,5; all of Hebrews.
* p47: third century, contains Revelation 9:10-17.2

Depending on how one defines 'tiny', this set of mss ALONE comprise a 'non-tiny' fragment collection!

The Bodmer papyri:
The major papyri in this collection are p66, p72, p75.

* p66: 150-200 AD, contains almost all of the Gospel of John!
* p72: 200's, containing all of I & II Peter, Jude
* p75: 175-200 AD, contains most of Luke 3-18, 22-24; John 1-15.

Again, substantial portions of the NT (as opposed to 'tiny fragments'). And, notice that ALL of these large mss. date from before the 4th century---that is, pre-Constantine.

Question: But what about all those virgin-born savior-gods who came way before Jesus? (off site)

Would you like to choose another alternative?

I. Jesus claimed divinity
11A. He meant it literally
11111. It is True------------------------------------------He is Lord
11112. It is False
111111a. He knew it was false-------------------------He was a Liar
111111b. He didn't know it was false------------------He was a Lunatic
11B. He meant it non-literally, mystically-------------He was a Guru

II. Jesus never claimed divinity--------------------------He is a Myth

III. Jesus died
11A. Jesus rose-------------------------------------------He is Lord
11B. Jesus didn't rise
11111. The apostles were deceived--------------------He was an Hallucination
11112. The gospel writers were myth-makers-------He is a Myth
11113. The apostles were deceivers-------------------He is a Conspiracy

IV. Jesus didn't die----------------------------------------It was a case of Swoon

Here is a list of the gazillions of OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.

Do you still need more evidence?

Here is a quick note on "miracles".

Are you still not sure?

Review the evidences page.

Review the claims of divinity page.

A broad overview of the world's major religions.

My favorite sites .

Here's my version of the crucifixion .

Contact me via e-mail.