# 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:** 9
**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 10, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/161 "2011-08-10T20:39:19Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as **they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses** , and ministerrs of the word: it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the first first to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mighest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed. In the Greek it says _paradosan_, “handed down.” We don’t have to guess at what this meant. he was talking about Mark and Q - both written sources, neither of them from witnesses. > [@](#): > > It may read somewhat differently in the original Greek. My interpretative of this is: “they,” who were “eyewitnesses,” told “us,” including me Luke, of the events pertaining to the life of Jesus. Your interpretation is incorrect. We know this because we know what Luke’s sources were, and they were not eyewitness (nor does he say he spoke to eyewitness, that’s just wishful thinking). > [@](#): > > If St. Luke was a traveling companion of St. Paul, even if he was a generation younger, he certainly had the opportunity to talk to several, perhaps most, of the twelve disciples, St. James, the younger brother of Jesus and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and perhaps Mary herself. Nope. The author of Luke didn’t have access to any disciples. For one thing, he wasn’t writing until 60-70 years after the alleged crucifixion, for another thing _we know what his sources were_, and they were not eyewitnesses. You are really behind the times on the scholarship here. While some scholars do still think the author might have known Paul, none but religious traditionalists think he interviewed disciples. That’s not even a claim the author makes for himself. It has no evidence, either internal or external to support it, and the fact that Luke bases his Gospel heavily on non-eyewitness sources further makes the claim unsupportable. ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/162 "2011-08-10T20:41:50Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am not claiming that Luke and Acts were written by an eyewitness. I am suggesting that they were written by St. Luke who had access to eyewitnesses. Cite that the author of Luke had access to eyewitnesses? if this is true, then why did he base his Gospel on non-eyewitness sources, and why did he have to resort to rank fabrication with his nativity story? ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/163 "2011-08-10T20:56:36Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > 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. This means absolutely nothing since we have absolutely no reason to identify this figure as the author of Luke-Acts. The author of Luke-Acts does not identify himself (and does not call himself Luke. All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works. All the authorship traditions arose in the 2nd Century. All are now widely regarded as spurious by current scholarship). > [@](#): > > Beginning with Acts 16:10 “we” and “us” is used instead of “they” and “them” indicating that St. Luke has joined St. Paul. It shows that the author may have incorporated another written source (possibly even an authentic one), but it doesn’t identify either the author of Luke or the author of that passage. “St. Luke” is a fictional character constructed basically from nothing but a name mentioned in passing by Paul. The connection of that name to Luke-Acts lacks any actual basis other than 2nd century folklore. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/164 "2011-08-10T21:47:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This means absolutely nothing since we have absolutely no reason to identify this figure as the author of Luke-Acts. The author of Luke-Acts does not identify himself (and does not call himself Luke. All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works. All the authorship traditions arose in the 2nd Century. All are now widely regarded as spurious by current scholarship). > > It shows that the author may have incorporated another written source (possibly even an authentic one), but it doesn’t identify either the author of Luke or the author of that passage. > > “St. Luke” is a fictional character constructed basically from nothing but a name mentioned in passing by Paul. The connection of that name to Luke-Acts lacks any actual basis other than 2nd century folklore. In concurrence, I’ll note that the authorship of Colossians is hotly debated, and the authorship of 2 Timothy is no longer really debated; most scholars agree that it is not written by Paul. You’d do better to cite Philemon, which is usually agreed to be written by Paul. Still, there is no evidence that the Gospel of Luke is written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke, or even by someone named Luke at all. The author of Luke-Acts never identifies himself, and no source earlier than the mid-to-late second century identifies Luke as the author. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/165 "2011-08-10T22:06:09Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am not claiming that Luke and Acts were written by an eyewitness. I am suggesting that they were written by St. Luke who had access to eyewitnesses. > > Where does it say in the New Testament that St. Paul circumcised Greek converts? St. Paul wrote that circumcision was unnecessary. However in order to satisfy Jewish Christians he had one Greek convert circumcised. I’m talking about Acts 16, where Paul has Timothy circumcised. This is a pretty big departure from his discussion in Galatians 2, where Paul discusses how Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even in Jerusalem where the circumcision-for-converts faction was very strong. And in Galatians 3, Paul says "Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. " This is probably a little hyperbolic, in light of what Paul says elsewhere in his letters, but Paul is given to hyperbole to make his points. I find it difficult to imagine that someone who traveled so extensively with Paul would make such an obvious error. ---
**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 11, 2011, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/166 "2011-08-11T06:20:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But by its very nature we have to determine _which_ Jesus we are looking for in the first place: > The Jesus that did everything and experienced everything everyone in the New Testament claims he said and did? > The Jesus that did _some_ things, while other things were allegories? > The Jesus that was a preacher that inspired others that never met him to embellish his accomplishments? > The Jesus that only one of a number of holy man in the area that just got lucky publicity-wise because someone liked his message? > > Before you can state whether or not you have found something, you have to first determine exactly what it is you are looking for in the first place. What about Yuri Geller? What about Sylvia? What about Houdini? Do we have to detail their miracles or actions to work out whether they existed? Czarcasm’s questions are fine, even relevant, but they really aren’t absolutely _necessary_ for asking whether Jesus of Nazarath existed or was a reconstructed amalgam of legends. DtC: “All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works.” Please elaborate. What’s the evidence for this? They must have had a title, right? And I thought that we didn’t have any first century copies anyway. **DtC** : Ok, so you’re saying Luke was based upon Mark and an alleged collection of Jesus sayings known as Q. What would distinguish that sort of text from one that also made use of interviews? Or are we talking about weighing evidence? ---
**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, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/167 "2011-08-11T07:04:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > What about Yuri Geller? What about Sylvia? What about Houdini? Do we have to detail their miracles or actions to work out whether they existed? Czarcasm’s questions are fine, even relevant, but they really aren’t absolutely _necessary_ for asking whether Jesus of Nazarath existed or was a reconstructed amalgam of legends. > > DtC: “All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works.” > Please elaborate. What’s the evidence for this? That they originally lacked those titles or attributions. > [@](#): > > They must have had a title, right? Nope, they had no titles. Those were added later. > [@](#): > > And I thought that we didn’t have any first century copies anyway. We don’t, but we know who first gave them those authorial attributions (none of which hold up to analysis, fyi). > [@](#): > > **DtC** : Ok, so you’re saying Luke was based upon Mark and an alleged collection of Jesus sayings known as Q. What would distinguish that sort of text from one that also made use of interviews? Or are we talking about weighing evidence? The language, for one thing, Q is Greek. the disciples spoke Aramaic. For another thing, it does not have any characteristic of an “interview,” nor is that even a genre that existed at the time. It’s just a collection of sayings. Minimal narrative framework, no claim to primary witness, no stories, no miracles, no resurrection, etc. just sayings and parables. What about it suggest “interview” to you? Do you actually have any familiarity with its contents? It’s possible that it is sourced from some kind of authentically preserved sayings tradition, but Luke himself got it from a written source, not an “interview.” We know this because Matthew uses the same Greek written source, word for word, in his own Gospel. ---
**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 11, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/168 "2011-08-11T07:30:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We don’t, but we know who first gave them those authorial attributions (none of which hold up to analysis, fyi). Thanks. Googling, I’ve found the creator [Saint Irenaeus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus), author of the work, _Against Heresies_. Diverting. > [@](#): > > What about it suggest “interview” to you? Do you actually have any familiarity with its contents? FTR, “Nothing” and “Not really”. I’ve read a little Q theory and was taking this opportunity to review the underlying argument. ---
**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 11, 2011, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/169 "2011-08-11T09:10:11Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > I’m talking about Acts 16, where Paul has Timothy circumcised. This is a pretty big departure from his discussion in Galatians 2, where Paul discusses how Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even in Jerusalem where the circumcision-for-converts faction was very strong. And in Galatians 3, Paul says "Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. " This is probably a little hyperbolic, in light of what Paul says elsewhere in his letters, but Paul is given to hyperbole to make his points. I find it difficult to imagine that someone who traveled so extensively with Paul would make such an obvious error. Acts 16: 1 - 3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timoththeus, the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported by the bretheren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him: and took and **circumcised him because of the Jews** which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. My reading of this is that Paul had Timoththeus circumcised in order to avoid conflicts with “the Jews,” and not for theological reasons. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/170 "2011-08-11T12:25:52Z")
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? 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. Is it possible the skeptics are less than objective? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/171 "2011-08-11T12:55:19Z")
> [@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? > > 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. > > Is it possible the skeptics are less than objective? Yeah, hairy facts need to get in the way of blind faith sometimes. ---
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/172 "2011-08-11T14:13:04Z")
> [@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. There is a huge body of writing about the Hindu gods as well. Since when is that proof of anything? The historicity of Jesus is not questioned because of “disagreement,” but because of the dearth of actual evidence. > [@](#): > > 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? Yes. Ever heard of the Dutch radicals? Not that this is is a meaningful defense of historical Jesus in the first place. Critical historical scholarship is relatively new, and for most of Christian history, people were not at liberty to ask those kinds of questions anyway. That is not evidence that HJ existed. > [@](#): > > 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. Much of the Bible is provably ahistorical, and its riddled with contradictions. How would it look different if it was not “inspired by God?” How do you know what’s true and what isn’t? > [@](#): > > Is it possible the skeptics are less than objective? What you call skepticism actually IS objectivity. If you have objective evidence for the evidence of Jesus, cough it up. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/173 "2011-08-11T15:12:33Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Acts 16: 1 - 3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timoththeus, the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported by the bretheren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him: and took and **circumcised him because of the Jews** which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. > > My reading of this is that Paul had Timoththeus circumcised in order to avoid conflicts with “the Jews,” and not for theological reasons. Yes, of course he did. However, Paul adamantly opposed circumcising Greek converts in his letters, as in the bit I quoted from Galatians. It is quite contradictory for him to do so in Acts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/174 "2011-08-11T15:50:55Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I find much of this thread preposterous. There is a huge body of writings about Jesus. _4 books_ is a “huge body of writings”? That’s the sum total of the (canonical) gospels. Hell, even Harry Potter got 7! Without any duplication! ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/175 "2011-08-11T16:48:00Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I find much of this thread preposterous… 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. What is preposterous is the idea that God would inspire two people writing about the same subject to contradict each other, not to mention secular history, and even common sense. It would make more sense to say that we have what we would expect to see if Satan had inspired the Gospel writers, to make sure that no objective person would believe them. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/176 "2011-08-11T17:10:32Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _4 books_ is a “huge body of writings”? There are way more than that! [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) has 150,359 of them. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/177 "2011-08-11T18:06:16Z")
There’s an awful lot of _Star Trek_ literature out there too, especially if you count fan-fic. That proves that Starfleet is real (or at least _will_ be real). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/178 "2011-08-11T18:31:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s an awful lot of _Star Trek_ literature out there too, especially if you count fan-fic. That proves that Starfleet is real (or at least _will_ be real). Not only that, but most of the stories do not contradict one another, and I can find actual schematics of most of the ships and clothing mentioned in the canon. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/179 "2011-08-11T18:33:31Z")
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. ---
**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 11, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017/180 "2011-08-11T19:13:39Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Yes, of course he did. However, Paul adamantly opposed circumcising Greek converts in his letters, as in the bit I quoted from Galatians. It is quite contradictory for him to do so in Acts. We will need to agree to disagree on this. I see it as a reluctant decision that was forced on him by circumstances. It certainly is not a contradiction between Acts and the epistles of St. Paul. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-of-a-historical-jesus-christ/590017.md?page=10)