# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/261 "2011-08-16T15:43:16Z")
> [@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. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He mentions somebody named Luke once. He didn’t write 2 Timothy. > > The legend is that this person, mentioned by Paul a single time in passing, had anything to do with writing Luke-Acts. 2nd Century folklore picked a name and created an authorship fable around it. In a total nitpick, I’ll note that Paul mentions Luke in Philemon, and then agree that there’s zero reason to attribute Luke-Acts to this particular Luke. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/262 "2011-08-16T16:24:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Not exactly. ‘Christos’ means ‘anointed’ in Greek and "moshiach’ means ‘anointed’ in Hebrew, but ‘moshiach’ does _not_ mean “messiah”. The kings of ancient Israel, for example, were anointed. Indeed, the entire concept of the Messianic Age is different in Judaism than it is in Christianity, and as such, the Jewish concept of a ‘messiah’ is radically different than the Christian one. I’m not an expert (at all) in Hebrew, but looking around a bit, I disagree. [Wikipedia says this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism): > [@](#): > > Messiah, Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ‎; mashiah, moshiah, mashiach, or moshiach, (“anointed [one]”) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible to describe priests and kings, who were traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil as described in Exodus 30:22-25. For example, Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, though not a Hebrew, is referred to as “God’s anointed” (Messiah) in the Bible. So maybe there was a difference in priests and kings being annointed, and then saying someone was “The Annointed One,” but isn’t it still true that the Jews in Jerusalem would never have referred to this country bumpkin rabble-rouser as being either a capital-M Messiah or a simply annointed messiah? My point was that the notion that the “Chrestus” could have referred to Jesus simply does not hold up to scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/263 "2011-08-16T16:35:16Z")
~shrugs~ Some might. Cultic offshoots of Judaism prophesying/following a new king of the Jews were hardly unknown. And again, you’re thinking in the wrong terms. They weren’t looking for a messiah, capital M or not. It’s not the same sort of a concept. ---
**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 16, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/264 "2011-08-16T16:51:28Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > ~shrugs~ > Some might. Cultic offshoots of Judaism prophesying/following a new king of the Jews were hardly unknown. And again, you’re thinking in the wrong terms. They weren’t looking for a messiah, capital M or not. It’s not the same sort of a concept. They had an expectation that an heir to the throne of David would restore the kingdom of Israel. Yes, “anointed ones” were standard Jewish designations for priests and kings, but they were still expecting an upper case “Anointed One” who would be both King and high priest (ala David) and restore the Davidic kingdom. This particular “Anointed” was still a human king, and Christianity took this concept in a completely different direction, but as to the semantic facts above, _Christos_ was the Greek word for “Anointed.” _Yeshua Moshiach_ and _Iesous Christos_ both mean “Jesus the Anointed” (with whatever meaning any given group wants to pack into “Anointed”…it’s essentially the equivalent of saying “King Jesus”), and neither of them has a connection to the name, _Chrestus_, which comes from a different Greek root. ---
**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 16, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/265 "2011-08-16T22:02:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, Masada was 72-73 CE at the end of the first Jewish-Roman War. > > The Maccabean revolt (163 BCE) was against the Greeks, not the Romans. Ya know, the last time this came up for me was well over a decade ago, in a conversation at work. I said one thing, went to the library after work and got a book out about it, and found out I was wrong. I went in the next day and corrected myself. I apparently have once again misremembered, and went and made the same damn mistake again. Thanks for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/266 "2011-08-16T22:15:13Z")
Regarding “Chrestus”, it is true that this name was used for slaves–[Cicero](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fam2.shtml#8) had a slave by this name–and obviously is derived from the Greek χρήστον - “useful”. However, some Christian writers remark that Latin speakers often mispronounced the term as “Chrestians”; [Tertullian](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0249/_P3.HTM) in his Apology (addressed generally to the \* Romani imperii antistites\* - “Rulers of the Roman empire”–is an example: > [@Tertullian](#): > > But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you “Chrestianus” (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. Note also that Tertullian is picking up on the Greek χρήστον when he refers to “sweetness and benignity”, a bit of wordplay from an otherwise stern (and IMO boring) Latin writer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017.md?page=13)