Take note of this post from Ari’s Blog of Awesome which focuses on the historicity of Jesus. Ari says, “Many may be misled in their investigation [of the historicity of Jesus] that the view that Jesus did not exist is popular or that those who affirm the positive do so on shaky evidence.” He then begins to describe the strength of the case for the historical Jesus, quoting three respected historians:
1) Robert E. Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in his discussion on the historical evidence of Jesus outside of the New Testament states:
“The theory of Jesus’ nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.” (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.14.)
2) Mark Allan Powell, a professor of NT and chairman for Historical Jesus at the Society of Biblical Literature puts it harsh stating:
Anyone who says that today [i.e. that Jesus didn’t exist]–in the academic world at least–gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat. (Mark A Powell, Jesus As a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. 168)
3) The late F.F. Bruce in his popular The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? said:
“Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.” (Bruce, The New Testament Documents. 123.)
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is a settled fact of history. Those who say or suggest otherwise are simply not informed.