# Evidence of a historical Jesus Christ **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017 "2011-07-22T19:25:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/181 "2011-08-11T20:15:51Z")
There are several other contradictions between Acts and Paul. it’s not just the one. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/182 "2011-08-11T22:00:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That kind of disagreement among witnesses just proves it’s more likely to be true. If it was fiction, they’d get their stories straight. Please try to get out of jury duty when my trial comes up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/183 "2011-08-12T00:04:58Z")
> [@brocks](#): > > Please try to get out of jury duty when my trial comes up. In case you didn’t get it, I was referencing a common apologist trope about contradictions between the Gospels (it’s particular common with regards to the contradictions in appearance narratives). ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/184 "2011-08-12T00:40:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In case you didn’t get it, I was referencing a common apologist trope about contradictions between the Gospels (it’s particular common with regards to the contradictions in appearance narratives). Yeah, I got that. I haven’t been here all that long, but I don’t need a program for some of the players, and you are one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/185 "2011-08-12T00:41:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > … contradictions in appearance narratives). What do you mean by that? Physical appearance (i.e. what someone looks like) or appearances as in “the band has appeared at multiple venues in the local area”? Not contradicting you, I just don’t know what you’re referring to, here. Curiosity… which kills cats dead! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/186 "2011-08-12T00:57:09Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I find much of this thread preposterous. There is a huge body of writings about Jesus. To question his existence because of some disagreements defies logic. I am unaware of any early questions of his existence. It seems to be a non issue. Did the question ever come up before the late twentieth century? FWIW, I took your position prior to my participation in last year’s thread, [Did Paul hijack Christianity?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-553596.html) I have since downgraded my stance to “Not wholly implausible but unlikely, possibly highly unlikely”. There is good documentation by Joesephus that Christians believed in Jesus in the 1st century AD, but there aren’t any eyewitness accounts. There’s an oral tradition around Jesus, but that could have been an agglomeration of legends appended to a name. There is a 20th century case of a fictional person being raised to the level of diety, by a Polynesian cargo cult. Paul writes about Jesus, but it’s not clear that he believed that Jesus died during his lifetime. All that said, the mythicist’s position is still in the fringe, though it is well outside the land of the crank. Casual laymen like myself are justified in their skepticism (IMHO), pending further scholarship. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/187 "2011-08-12T01:21:24Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > What do you mean by that? Physical appearance (i.e. what someone looks like) or appearances as in “the band has appeared at multiple venues in the local area”? > > Not contradicting you, I just don’t know what you’re referring to, here. Curiosity… which kills cats dead! 🙂 Sorry. The “Appearance narratives” in the Gospels refer to Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after the crucifixion. The Gospels differ greatly from each other in those details. They follow Mark fairly closely up to the discovery of the empty tomb (though even here there are contradictions), and then diverge wildly after they lose Mark as a guideline (Mark has no Appearance narrative, and ends with the women running away from the tomb, saying they were too afraid to tell anyone). ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/188 "2011-08-12T08:06:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Sorry. The “Appearance narratives” in the Gospels refer to Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after the crucifixion. The Gospels differ greatly from each other in those details. They follow Mark fairly closely up to the discovery of the empty tomb (though even here there are contradictions), and then diverge wildly after they lose Mark as a guideline (Mark has no Appearance narrative, and ends with the women running away from the tomb, saying they were too afraid to tell anyone). Those contradictions resemble different eye witnesses accounts of an emotionally charged event. They do not mean that the event did not happen. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/189 "2011-08-12T08:11:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There are several other contradictions between Acts and Paul. it’s not just the one. I am not denying that. I would like you to list several, so that I can evaluate them. St. Luke does not seemed to have joined St. Paul until the last part of his ministry. It is conceivable that he got several of his details wrong. Also, we should not expect St. Luke to have read every one of St. Paul’s epistles. They had not been published. They were not on a flash drive somewhere. St. Paul did not even keep carbon copies in a folder. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/190 "2011-08-12T11:56:14Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those contradictions resemble different eye witnesses accounts of an emotionally charged event. They do not mean that the event did not happen. Well, it depends on who the eyewitnesses were, right? Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple Of course, what those women do with the info, that’s up to them: Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.” John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home So, apparently Mary Magdalene was the common denominator and should have been able to make sure that any contradictions were cleared up. But didn’t. So it was up to the writers of the Gospels to make up the story as they saw fit. And oddly, that’s pretty much where the Gospels left it. They all skipped over his ascension into heaven. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/191 "2011-08-12T13:27:32Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those contradictions resemble different eye witnesses accounts of an emotionally charged event. Not at all. Where the gospels agree, they often repeat things word-for-word, and when they diverge, they diverge wildly. That’s not at all what you get with independent eyewitness accounts. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/192 "2011-08-12T13:42:31Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Well, it depends on who the eyewitnesses were, right? > > Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome > Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary > Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” > John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple > > Of course, what those women do with the info, that’s up to them: > Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word > Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples > Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.” > John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home > > So, apparently Mary Magdalene was the common denominator and should have been able to make sure that any contradictions were cleared up. But didn’t. So it was up to the writers of the Gospels to make up the story as they saw fit. > > And oddly, that’s pretty much where the Gospels left it. They all skipped over his ascension into heaven. Even if, as I believe likely, Mark and Luke were written before 66 AD, there was time for differences to get into the accounts. Mark and Luke may have talked to Mary Madgalene about what happened. They did not record the conversations on a camcorder. I do think it is likely that Matthew and John were written after the crushing of the Jewish uprising in 73 AD. There is no evidence that Matthew read Luke. John seems to have, but he does not seem to use it a source. He did not have a copy of Luke while composing John. I do believe that the authors of Matthew and John had as source material written accounts by the apostles Matthew and John. Of course, I cannot prove this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/193 "2011-08-12T13:54:19Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those contradictions resemble different eye witnesses accounts of an emotionally charged event. No they don’t. Not in the slightest. None of them are first hand accounts, and they don’t remotely resemble each other. After they lose Mark as a guideline, the other narratives aren’t even on the same planet. Thanks for proving my point, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/194 "2011-08-12T14:03:56Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am not denying that. I would like you to list several, so that I can evaluate them. St. Luke does not seemed to have joined St. Paul until the last part of his ministry. It is conceivable that he got several of his details wrong. Well, for a couple of examples, Acts says that Paul went to Jerusalem five times, Paul says he only went there three times. Acts also says that Paul went to Jerusalem right after his conversion, and Paul says he waited three years. > [@](#): > > Also, we should not expect St. Luke to have read every one of St. Paul’s epistles. They had not been published. They were not on a flash drive somewhere. St. Paul did not even keep carbon copies in a folder. Funny that you keep talking about this “St. Luke” character as if he was anything but a legend. A traveling buddy of Paul’s should have known that Paul claimed to have waited three years before going to Jerusalem, would he not? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/195 "2011-08-12T14:22:26Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Even if, as I believe likely, Mark and Luke were written before 66 AD, there was time for differences to get into the accounts. Mark and Luke may have talked to Mary Madgalene about what happened. They did not record the conversations on a camcorder. Mark was written post 70 and Luke was written post 90, but the differences between Mark and Luke are massively different. Mark says that the women didn’t tell anybody at all and does not say that Jesus ever appeared to anybody. Luke has the road to Emmaus story. This is not the same story with minor difference in details. They are completely different stories altogether, and Luke’s story, post-empty tomb is radically different from both Matthew and John. Luke, matthew and John all have totally different appearance stories, in completely different places with completely different characters. > [@](#): > > I do think it is likely that Matthew and John were written after the crushing of the Jewish uprising in 73 AD. There is no evidence that Matthew read Luke. Matthew was written before Luke. They shared common sources (under the Farrer hypothesis, Luke used Matthew, but Q is still the more prevalent opinion) > [@](#): > > John seems to have, but he does not seem to use it a source. John shows no awareness of Luke whatsoever, though he does arguably show some awareness of Mark. > [@](#): > > He did not have a copy of Luke while composing John. I do believe that the authors of Matthew and John had as source material written accounts by the apostles Matthew and John. Of course, I cannot prove this. The majority of Matthew is copied directly from Mark and Q. The stuff that isn’t is the patently invented nativity and appearance narratives. What part came directly from an apostle? It’s not impossible that John contains some embedded anecdotal material from an authentic apostolic source, but the book is a layered work, not written by an apostle and any authentic material is minimal at best. It’s the latest written (c. 100 CE in its final form), and is generally regarded as the least historical. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/196 "2011-08-12T15:12:53Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I find much of this thread preposterous. There is a huge body of writings about Jesus. To question his existence because of some disagreements defies logic. I am unaware of any early questions of his existance. It seems to be a non issue. Did the question ever come up before the late twentieth century? I think that it’s most likely the case that there was a person for whom all of this is based on. I don’t think we have access to much of who that person was though. That said, just because we have a huge body of writings does not mean that the primary character is a real person. We have a huge body of writings for Job, does that mean Job was _real_? We have a huge body of writings regarding vampires - does that mean they are real? We have a huge body of writings regarding perseus, does that mean he was real? The question of Jesus’s historicity, IIRC, originally came up in the 1800’s, although, I will admit that I’m not fully researched on this. > [@thelabdude](#): > > If the Bible is what it is believed to be, it would be much like it is. It was not dictated by an angel. Believers accept that it was written by different men over a long period of time under the inspiration of God. As such, some of the historical details will vary. Why would it be much like this? If God was inspiring folks, then he did a piss-poor job with the New Testament. The writings of Josephus are more believable, yet even they contain ludicrous accounts in them. > [@thelabdude](#): > > Is it possible the skeptics are less than objective? Some are, I feel. As I said, I give a little more weight to Jesus’s historicity then his ahistoricity. The scales of evidence aren’t all that conclusive though. I look at Jesus as I look at other religio-fabulous figures, such as Confucius, King Arthur, etc, etc. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/197 "2011-08-12T15:27:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Funny that you keep talking about this “St. Luke” character as if he was anything but a legend. St. Paul mentions St. Luke twice. Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician and Demas greet you. 2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/198 "2011-08-12T15:28:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Mark was written post 70 and Luke was written post 90, but the differences between Mark and Luke are massively different. Mark says that the women didn’t tell anybody at all and does not say that Jesus ever appeared to anybody. Luke has the road to Emmaus story. This is not the same story with minor difference in details. They are completely different stories altogether, and Luke’s story, post-empty tomb is radically different from both Matthew and John. Luke, matthew and John all have totally different appearance stories, in completely different places with completely different characters. > > Matthew was written before Luke. They shared common sources (under the Farrer hypothesis, Luke used Matthew, but Q is still the more prevalent opinion) > > John shows no awareness of Luke whatsoever, though he does arguably show some awareness of Mark. > > The majority of Matthew is copied directly from Mark and Q. The stuff that isn’t is the patently invented nativity and appearance narratives. What part came directly from an apostle? > > It’s not impossible that John contains some embedded anecdotal material from an authentic apostolic source, but the book is a layered work, not written by an apostle and any authentic material is minimal at best. It’s the latest written (c. 100 CE in its final form), and is generally regarded as the least historical. You assume that all of this is known, but it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/199 "2011-08-12T15:37:06Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those contradictions resemble different eye witnesses accounts of an emotionally charged event. They do not mean that the event did not happen. The gospels do not read like eye witness accounts. Are we to believe that any of the writers witnessed the virgin birth? Or when the Devil tempts him with all the world? How did anyone hear his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, when everyone was asleep? There are other incidents, of course. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > You assume that all of this is known, but it is not. You wrote this to DtC - what he mentions is pretty standard in the New Testament scholarship. You can go [here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html), click on several gospels, and get some useful information with regards to this. For example, with regard to Mark, from [here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html): > [@](#): > > A general range of dating for the Gospel of Mark can be suggested with reference to the external evidence. If the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus implies that the Gospel of Mark was written after the death of Peter, traditionally set in Rome c. 65 CE. If the tradition is not accepted, as Nineham states (op. cit., p. 41), “Those who are cautious about accepting the Papias tradition can hardly put the lower limit much earlier, for they must allow time for the oral tradition to have developed in the way described above.” The terminus ad quem is set by the incorporation of Mark into the Gospel of Matthew and into the Gospel of Luke. If the Gospel of Matthew was written in the last two decades of the first century, the most probable range of dating for the Gospel of Mark is from 65 to 80 CE. > > This range can be further qualified by an examination of the internal evidence. > > Mark’s “Little Apocalypse” in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE. The events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple left a deep impression on the Jews of the time. Jerusalem and the Temple were the center of religious life for Palestinian Jews, and the war with the Romans had ravaged the countryside and left thousands dead. Thus, it is understandable that some would associate these horrible events with the end times. An exegesis of Mark 13 shows how the author’s description corresponds with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt. > > The destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 CE, is mentioned in v. 1-4. Leaving the temple area, a disciple said: “Teacher, look at the huge blocks of stone and the enormous buildings!” Facing the temple, Jesus responds: “You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another - all will be torn down.” Peter and some others then question Jesus about the signs of the apocalypse privately, a tell-tale sign of Mark’s redactional hand (instead of earlier well-known tradition). There’s more, of course. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/200 "2011-08-12T15:42:53Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > St. Paul mentions St. Luke twice. > > Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician and Demas greet you. > > 2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. No he doesn’t. My post is my cite. See how that works? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017.md?page=11)