Context:
The question of the
historicity of Jesus deals with the analysis of historical data to determine if
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus existed as a historical figure, the approximate context of where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events. In contrast, the study of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus goes beyond the question of his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel and the history of first century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Judea.
Virtually all modern
scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,
[1][2][3][4] although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity.
[5][6][7][8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_antiquity regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.
[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.
[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere
[15][16][17] and that he spoke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.
[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist and shortly afterwards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus by the order of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_governor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate.
[21]