unless you're completely making things up you need to use sources when writing history and this concludes religious figures like Jesus so what sources do you use to create a biography of a man believed by many to be the Son of God the written sources for the historical Jesus can be divided into four categories you have Christian sources which can be divided into canonical and non-canonical sources and you have non-christian sources which can be divided into Jewish and Pagan in this video we're gonna look at the Christian sources for Jesus and then in part two we'll look at the non-christian sources for Jesus so let's go there are a surprising number of documents from the ancient Mediterranean about the life of Jesus but they're not all reliable or at least not all equally reliable the biggest factor determining reliability is how close to Jesus lifetime was the written source and the oldest sources for the life of Jesus are in the New Testament now I'm sure some of you are wondering is it appropriate to use the New Testament as a historical source myth assists reject the use of the Bible as a historical source outright because that's kind of what makes you a myth assist but people tend to believe that because the New Testament is used as a sacred religious text it suddenly loses all validity as an objective historical document but this is far from the case I think this idea is a holdover from debates about the existence of God where the Bible is not admissible evidence for God's existence in a previous video I mentioned that the Bible is not a single document but rather a collection of documents that were assembled and had multiple different authors although today the books of the New Testament are used as sacred religious texts they weren't necessarily written with that in mind what you had were writers who wanted to record the life and deeds of their recently deceased Messiah in accordance with their communities traditions they didn't know their works would be taken by others as the divinely inspired Word of God at some point so in respect to those authors we should treat these documents the way they treated them and then judge their merit from there and the oldest source is recording information about Jesus came from the epistles if you're familiar with the New Testament then you know that the Gospels usually come first but that's only because early Christians wanted the New Testament to be organized by a chronological narrative like the Old Testament was but in terms of actual age of documents it's the epistles that are the oldest that we are aware of the epistles are letters written to different early Christian communities across the Mediterranean and scholars are uncertain as to who exactly wrote each one of them and these letters address the issues that early Christian communities were facing but they don't address the life of Jesus at least not directly but you can still tease details about him from those documents for example from the Pauline epistles you learn that Jesus was a Jew whose primary audience was other Jews and he claimed to be fulfilling Jewish Messianic prophecies we also see from the Pauline epistles that Jesus was believed by his followers to be descended from King David which is a pretty big deal when it comes to Jewish messianic prophecy and the non Pauline epistles also give details like this as well and most importantly when addressing the Christ myth theory the epistles emphasize the fact that these followers of Jesus believed that he was in fact a real flesh-and-blood human person who walked the earth and the not-too-distant past the epistles are usually dated to have been written sometime between the 40s and 60s see II these documents are very important for historians of early Christianity because they paint a portrait of what the earliest followers of Jesus believed about him but if you want actual details about the life of Jesus you need to look to the Gospels the four canonical Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John can be divided into two groups there are mark Matthew and Luke which are referred to as the synoptic Gospels and then you have the Gospel of John which is all by itself now those first three Gospels mark Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they are all all connected by common sources the book of Mark is believed to be the oldest of the Gospels written sometime between 70 and 80 C II the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both reference many of the same events in mark wording them in very similar ways all three of these Gospels are believed to be looking at the same set of sources refer to as Q Y Q because Q is the first letter in the German word for source this source Q is believed to be a set of documents and eyewitness testimonies that were available to the author of mark and possibly to the authors of Matthew and Luke but they are long gone by now and so we can't be a hundred percent certain and then there's the Gospel of John which is believed to be taking from its own set of written and oral traditional sources often referred to as Jay while the book of Mark is dated to sometime between 70 and 80 C II Matthew and Luke are usually dated to sometime in the 80s or 90 °c while John is usually dated to sometime around 100 C II along with the epistles and the Gospels there also the book of Acts which is believed to be written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke the book of Acts gives similar details about Jesus's life that you can tease out of the epistles of Paul it is also noteworthy that the Gospel of Acts must have different sources than the Gospel of Luke and we know this because the Gospel of Luke doesn't include the fate of what happened to Judas the disciple that betrayed Jesus but the book of Acts does it should also be noted that the only other depiction of the death of Judas comes from the Gospel of Matthew which gives a different account than acts for those putting together a biography of Jesus this is important information because it means that you don't have everyone building their stories of Jesus off the exact same pool of sources meaning that there is far more evidence for his historicity then might be seen on the surface and of course there is the book of Revelation which although light on the details of the life of Jesus is still important because its author is clearly writing about a person who is believed to have been flesh-and-blood and it was written sometime between the 60s and 90s see II that covers the canonical sources for Jesus but what do the non canonical sources of Jesus have to say there are texts from numerous Church Fathers that write about Jesus but the ones that interest Jesus scholars the most are papayas of Hierapolis and quadratus of Athens papayas was born around sixty seee so he didn't know Jesus personally but he did meet many of those who did and so he compiled eyewitness testimony into his five volume work expositions on the sayings of the Lord unfortunately this collection of documents has been missing since about the late Middle Ages but luckily portions of it are quoted in numerous documents most notably Eusebius –is work on the early church history and then there's quadratus sometimes referred to as the first Christian apologist he wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Hadrian defending Christianity in the miracles of Jesus claiming that the people Jesus had healed or brought back to life were still alive by the early second century these works are usually used by apologist to defend the objective divinity of Jesus but regardless of whether or not he was we are clearly dealing with a pair of authors who were dealing with people who knew their real flesh-and-blood historical Jesus beyond the early church fathers there's all the apocryphal texts which were not selected to be put into the Christian Bible due to their heretical theology and although not useful as a historical source for Jesus they are useful in looking at the diversity of early Christianity one of these texts that is sometimes cited is the Gospel of Thomas however it only talks about supposed secret teachings of Jesus and on top of that it was written sometime in the second century which makes it more useful as an example of how certain second century Christian communities transmitted information that for any details about the life of Jesus if you want to learn more about the Gospel of Thomas I recommend you watch this video from the channel religion for breakfast to which you can find a link to in the I in the upper right-hand corner the Gospel of Thomas is often believed to be a gnostic text and to learn more about Gnosticism I suggest you watch another video from religious per breakfast also in the upper right hand corner by clicking the I the reason I bring up the Gnostics is because the myth assists have a strange fascination with them and if you read enough of their literature you'll find the Gnostics referenced almost as much as I chorus Egyptian god of the Sun and so because the myth assists are so obsessed with the Gnostics I feel it's appropriate to bring them up here unfortunately I'm not going to go into any more detail about them here because I'm going to have at least one video most likely several on the Gnostic Christian theories of the myth assists there are other Christian sources about the life of Jesus but most of them are written past the point of reliability as a primary source and serve more as an intellectual history of a certain community than as an actual source for the life of Jesus so now that we've covered the Christian sources for Jesus and episode 3 we're gonna take a look at what the non-christians have to say I would like to thank all my patients for helping make this video and with a special thanks to my first executive producer Leo hock Houser thanks to your support I can continue to make videos like these for everyone to enjoy if you're interested in becoming a patron then you can go to patreon.com/scishow can get such as getting your name of the end credits of videos or getting to see videos early thanks for watching everybody don't forget to Like share and subscribe

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. What would be some reasons for no Christian source speaking of Jesus during his adult life, like around 25-35 CE? I understand it is the infancy of the religion, but nothing of this guy who is bringing people together, healing the sick, and supposedly the Jewish prophecy? Why?

  2. Just watched your whole series on this topic and I was wondering if you’d answer this question – after the recent fire at Notre Dame I read about the “crown of thorns” and I was hoping you could tell me if there’s any proof to it’s legitimacy and if so, are there any scientists willing to DNA test it? Thank you 🙂

  3. If there was a civil war for Utah independence that lasted 150 years. And, only one guy named Joe, recorded that history. And, a whole lotta libraries got burned. It is highly likely, a group that claimed David koresh could walk on water would be able to rewrite history. That's my take

  4. Saying Matthew is giving a different account of Judas Death is an objectively wrong statement because Matthew never says Judas died.

  5. You should start a go fund me to obtain DNA @ where did jewish people come from . you brought up a great subject as it is a part of everyone's history

  6. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ collects the "evidence" both Christian and non Christian regarding the Jesus providing links to each subsection. The evidence isn't that impressive as every piece of evidence has a problem in terms of history, quality, or both..

  7. The World of True Science = Reality

    This is the License for corruption article.

    I do not expect any likes on this one as I do not like it myself. There is just nothing I can do about my dislikes.

    Some of my fake friend may delete me because of this article.

    And there are some fake friends that cannot stomach the facts and truth; they gag on it, and vomit it up, and then they become very confused.
    The facts and truth can be very confusing to the dishonest and ignorant.

    We all should realize, by now, in this day, we have fake Friends as well as fake news.

    First for those who are wealthy and in high offices of Government and also corporations; their offices are their license for corruption.

    Then; for the licenses for corruption for the poor and middle class that are into Christianity. It is just claiming to believe in a man that they have heard about, that lived in ancient times. They know his name, but they have not even an idea what the man was truly like in real life.

    The price for these licensees are cheap, you just claim you believe in this man of ancient times.

    Now, for all Christianity, this license for their corruption is valid for a life time; no renewals are required.
    It covers all of their corruption; in the past present and future.

    However, for those who are very close to their mother, they do need to go and confess their corruption to that little man in the box, in the house that they worship their gods in.

    Then, for those protestants that are not so close to their mother, they must go to their house that they worship their gods in; and shout hallelujah and praise to this man that they heard about, that lived in Ancient times that they truly know nothing about, but what they have heard from others.

    The strange thing of all of this is that Christianity thinks that they must confess this corruption to their gods rather than to confess their corruption to their own brothers and sister that they did the corruption to.

    They did nothing to their gods they did it to their brothers or sisters.

    Then, why shouldn’t they make amends by reimbursement to their brothers and sisters.
    Perhaps most have done forgiven them, However, that forgiveness is for the peace and comfort of the forgiver. It does nothing for the aggressor, the one that committed the corruption.

    Nothing is truly free, someone pays for everything.
    It is just the matter of who is doing the paying.

    For all of you of Christianity; in all of your understanding do realize that there are many gods and gods are not Father or creators. Gods are just mythical idols of worship.

    In the English language, Father, does have the meaning of creator.

    Now, for all of Christianity, those nice words are not important, our Father the Great Creator know all about you, much more than you know about yourself. Our Father the Great Creator knows the intent of your spirit and that is what really and truly counts.
    Words are cheap; perhaps about a penny a Trillion, if it is even that much.

    This is just words to the honest and wise: honesty and understanding is the only true belief. Without honesty and understanding we do not know what to believe.
    To accept others opinion of the truth without proving it to yourself; it is being deceived it is not believing.
    We must understand to believe.

    Until Next time; Sweet Dreams: truth will solve all our problems before we create them; and ignore or reject the truth; problems will multiply all by themselves.
    Have a great and a meaningful life if it is at all possible.
    Just whispers of the Ghost of Reality

  8. Paul never claimed to know Jesus but only saw him in a vision. The Gospels were written decades after the time Jesus supposedly lived and there is no knowing who the authors were.

  9. Here is a 100% lie by omission of material fact.

    The Gospels are anonymous and not eyewitnesses.

    More importantly, the gospel we call Mark was first.
    The Gospel we call Mathew copied 90% of his gospel from Mark.
    The Gospel we call Luke copied 50% of his gospel from Mark.

    These are the synoptic gospels and they are seen as the same because Mat and Luke copied Mark. LOL

    Hardly, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS.

    In addition, the Book of Acts is also anonymous.

    Lastly, compare the two following terms.

    Anonymous and Primary Source.

    If you don't know who wrote it, how do you know it was a primary source? Hmm?

  10. Very, very solid video. As a educated historian and also a Christian, Jesus' source material is highly relevant to me. I also find the sources on him to be very strong, considering the enormous time-span since he's walking on earth.

Related Post