# How do we know for certain Jesus really lived? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 17, 2019, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978 "2019-12-17T04:42:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/282 "2020-01-02T12:39:47Z")
Yes, the miracle-working of Jesus has been _greatly_ exaggerated. My point is that Jesus _was_ most likely a healer of sorts. Perhaps he only cured “psychosomatic” diseases, and picked his patients carefully. But his reputation as a healer probably has some basis. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/283 "2020-01-02T17:43:10Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Wait, you want a cite for the claim that the Black Death devastated Europe at a time when it was 90% Christian? … No I want a cite for _“There was a very large-scale experiment done on the efficacy of faith healing in the 14th century, when the Black Death swept through Europe… Everyone prayed for the plague to spare their family, their town, their country. But the death rate among Christians was the same as the death rate among Jews, Muslims, and pagans.”_ both that the death rate was the same and that the “Jews, Muslims, and pagans” didnt pray for healing. And that the death rate would have been the same had no one prayed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/284 "2020-01-02T17:45:08Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > My mindset is that “faith healing” as the term is used today can cure none of them, or at best, only ills that were psychosomatic in the first place. … … > …r. I have shown cites on the efficiency of placebos and that Faith healing can act as a placebo. You don’t seem to want to believe **science.** ---
**Author:** ![bbonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecb155/32.png) [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/285 "2020-01-03T01:17:09Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Cherry-picker, probably. Pick what may be corroborated elsewhere, or what you just find satisfying, and ignore the rest. That’s how Gawd-Is-Love apologists deal with biblical calls for infanticide, genocide, slavery, family abuse, etc. > > I have trouble reconciling oral tribal histories, transcribed after many generations, with claims of holy textual inerrancy. Either Jehovah mumbles and is misunderstood, or human transcribers missed much, or it’s not to be taken seriously. Genesis rides on at least three incompatible origin myths. Exodus is bolstered by zero archaeological evidence. Major Gospel events don’t match known history. What a pickle! > > Believers are free to pick whatever texts they want to justify themselves. Be sure to sell your daughters into slavery. Sounds like reverse cherry-picking. Many (perhaps all!) ancient texts contain combinations of truth and fantasy. Herodotus wrote of cyclops. Do we throw out the Battle of Marathon? The life of Jesus is extraordinarily well documented for a man of his time. Sure, the Gospel-writers had other motives - but so did, say, Livy and Plutarch when writing about the (long-since-deceased) Gracchi. I don’t see anyone in this thread debating “inerrancy,” only historicity. And historical scholarship cannot/should not throw out entire texts, but rather parse them using various relevant tools like the criterion of embarrassment. As I wrote above, for me the cross-confirming historicity of Paul/Peter/James/“Luke” likewise confirms the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/286 "2020-01-03T03:54:19Z")
Very nice post, **bbonden**. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/287 "2020-01-03T18:49:27Z")
> [@bbonden](#): > > I don’t see anyone in this thread debating “inerrancy,” only historicity. Must a believer cherry-pick what portions of divine word to believe? That’s the path to heresy and apostasy. The lord said this, oh but it isn’t so, oh but everything symbolizes something, oh but it means something else, yada yada. “Oh, the joy of smashing your enemies children against the rocks!” isn’t really a call for infanticide. Unless it is. > [@](#): > > And historical scholarship cannot/should not throw out entire texts, but rather parse them using various relevant tools like the criterion of embarrassment. Having gospel accord with known timelines helps. The nativity story fails there. > [@](#): > > As I wrote above, for me the cross-confirming historicity of Paul/Peter/James/“Luke” likewise confirms the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Saul/Paul, the torturer and death-squad leader who founded Xianity, never quoted Jesus, with is rather strange for a supposed follower. (And I greatly distrust torturers.) Did he provide any biographical details? I recall reading that Saul/Paul’s letters were the first NT texts written, with gospels and other epistles produced later, so I guess the torturer lacked a biography cheat-sheet. I also recall an Assyrian priest telling me that Paul’s epistles weren’t considered canonical in old Eastern Xianity. The [synoptic gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels) seem to be mostly based on “Luke” and, along with “John”, _“were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.”_ Oral history –\> playing “telephone” over many decades. Again, people believe what they wish. I choose to disbelieve uncorroborated histories. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/288 "2020-01-03T18:58:04Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > … > > Saul/Paul, the torturer and death-squad leader who founded Xianity, never quoted Jesus, with is rather strange for a supposed follower. … > > The [synoptic gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels) seem to be mostly based on “Luke” and, along with “John”, _“were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.”_ Oral history –\> playing “telephone” over many decades. > … Got a cite for that claim about Paul? Not quite, most got into written for not long after. And today, most scholars think John had a hand in his Gospel. and it does mention the writer as being the beloved disciple, who everyone knew was John. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/289 "2020-01-03T19:58:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And today, most scholars think John had a hand in his Gospel. and it does mention the writer as being the beloved disciple, who everyone knew was John. Is the phrase “Beloved disciple of _Jesus_” used? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/290 "2020-01-03T22:36:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is the phrase “Beloved disciple of _Jesus_” used? John 20:2 New International Version (NIV) 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” John 13:23 King James Version (KJV) 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. John 19:26 King James Version (KJV) 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! and three more times. Finally:John 21:24 King James Version (KJV) 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. ---
**Author:** ![bbonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecb155/32.png) [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/291 "2020-01-04T04:02:49Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Must a believer cherry-pick what portions of divine word to believe? That’s the path to heresy and apostasy. The lord said this, oh but it isn’t so, oh but everything symbolizes something, oh but it means something else, yada yada. “Oh, the joy of smashing your enemies children against the rocks!” isn’t really a call for infanticide. Unless it is. Non sequitur. The conversation is historicity, not divinity. Historians, not "believer"s. Historic sources, not “divine word.” The latter can be its own debate, certainly. > [@RioRico](#): > > Having gospel accord with known timelines helps. The nativity story fails there. Agreed. Big strike against the historicity of “Away in a Manger.” > [@RioRico](#): > > The [synoptic gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels) seem to be mostly based on “Luke” and, along with “John”, _“were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.”_ Oral history –\> playing “telephone” over many decades. > > Again, people believe what they wish. I choose to disbelieve uncorroborated histories. Certainly your right. What’s your take on Socrates? The existence of kings of Rome (seven or any other number)? The Trojan War? Gautama Buddha? Lycurgus? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/292 "2020-01-04T05:36:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And today, most scholars think John had a hand in his Gospel. and it does mention the writer as being the beloved disciple, who everyone knew was John. No, they don’t. Although I see you’ve started weakening this to “had a hand in” rather than “wrote” or “authored.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/293 "2020-01-04T06:47:00Z")
> [@bbonden](#): > > What’s your take on Socrates? Those who ask about Socrates might be unaware that he was mentioned in [The Clouds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clouds), a contemporary play by Aristophanes which Plato thought contributed to Socrates trial and execution. On the other hand, no one thinks that the words Plato attribute to Socrates were ever spoken by Socrates. Or at least a vast majority of them were not. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/294 "2020-01-04T07:22:15Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Must a believer cherry-pick what portions of divine word to believe? That’s the path to heresy and apostasy. _Is this thread about the dogma of an organized Church, or is it about the historicity of Jesus?_ If I think George Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree, does it follow that George Washington never existed? > [@](#): > > Having gospel accord with known timelines helps. The nativity story fails there. _Has anyone in the thread argued that the nativity stories are true?_ thought we’d moved past that. _Or do fallacies in the cherry tree story mean Washington was entirely mythical?_ > [@septimus](#): > > Aslan also claims that the **early readers of the Gospels did NOT take stories like Bethlehem literally, and weren’t intended to. They understood the concept of mythic embellishments even if later Christians did not.** The Bible is hardly the only example of ancient literature with mythic embellishments not meant to be taken literally. > [@](#): > > The [synoptic gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels) seem to be mostly based on “Luke” and, along with “John”, \*“were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.” The “Q source” common to Luke and Matthew has been dated to circa 50 AD. The Gospel of Thomas also incorporates an early source. John’s Gospel is dated to circa 95 AD but was based on earlier writings. Wikipedia: “This hypothetical _Signs Gospel_ listing Christ’s miracles … was believed to have been circulating before the year 70 AD [possibly derived from writings originally by] the Beloved Disciple.” Absence of evidence for earlier Gospels is not evidence of absence. Papyrus manuscripts are extremely flimsy. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. AD 69–155, martyred at age 86), claimed to have been tutored by John the Apostle. > [@Irenaeus](#): > > I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/295 "2020-01-04T08:30:40Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > No, they don’t. Although I see you’ve started weakening this to “had a hand in” rather than “wrote” or “authored.” Actually if you go into _Modern_ scholarship, once the point about Gnostic was disproved by the dead sea scrolls, yes, they do. I usually say “dictated to his disciples” which in effect means _wrote_ Other than old Julius, almost no one put their actual pen to paper, they hired scribes or secretaries. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/296 "2020-01-04T14:56:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Actually if you go into _Modern_ scholarship, once the point about Gnostic was disproved by the dead sea scrolls, yes, they do. > > I usually say “dictated to his disciples” which in effect means _wrote_ I reject all of your above claims. Your continued insistence that the Dead Sea scrolls somehow changed the timetable for when John could have been written seems roughly on par with your insistence that it was once a common belief among critical scholars that Pilate didn’t exist. That is, I’m sure there are loads of theologians and biblical literalists turned “scholars” who insist that that used to be the claim and that “the critics” were shown to be wrong thanks to archeological evidence, but I am not satisfied that’s actually true. Your second claim, like the first, reads as an apologist’s conjecture to explain how John was supposed to have written in Greek (or at all), when he and the other apostles were most likely low class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking laborers. Like so many conjectures, it takes “what could have happened, maybe, at least in theory” and tries to contort it into “what obviously happened” because otherwise they’d have to abandon their belief that a guy named John who knew Jesus really well wrote a Gospel attributed to him, a gospel which is the most miraculous and least detached from any kind of plausible, historical Jesus. Every thing about Jesus as presented in John screams “mythical figure.” Which is perhaps why so many committed believers are interested in “proving” it was written (or dictated) by an eye witness. Because of course an eye witness wouldn’t lie, right? So that means all that “mythical” stuff really ought to scream “divine son of God!” ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/297 "2020-01-04T17:02:13Z")
Paul did quote Jesus but very few times considering. And it mostly amounts to: What Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus and later. Sayings of Jesus that are quotes or directly refer to the Old Testament which Paul was a big fan of. Hardly all that original. Generic “blessing” quotes and such. If you hope to find Paul quoting sermons, parables, etc., you are almost completely out of luck. There is a ton of stuff in the Gospels that Paul doesn’t touch on at all. If you’re using Paul as the first historian on Jesus and His life, and therefore the most reliable, you’re not going to find much. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/298 "2020-01-04T17:14:04Z")
Paul did quote Jesus but very few times considering. And it mostly amounts to: What Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus and later. Sayings of Jesus that are quotes or directly refer to the Old Testament which Paul was a big fan of. Hardly all that original. Generic “blessing” quotes and such. If you hope to find Paul quoting sermons, parables, etc., you are almost completely out of luck. There is a ton of stuff in the Gospels that Paul doesn’t touch on at all. If you’re using Paul as the first historian on Jesus and His life, and therefore the most reliable, you’re not going to find much. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/299 "2020-01-04T17:44:40Z")
Oops! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/300 "2020-01-04T18:25:01Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > I reject all of your above claims. Your continued insistence that the Dead Sea scrolls somehow changed the timetable for when John could have been written seems roughly on par with your insistence that it was once a common belief among critical scholars that Pilate didn’t exist. That is, I’m sure there are loads of theologians and biblical literalists turned “scholars” who insist that that used to be the claim and that “the critics” were shown to be wrong thanks to archeological evidence, but I am not satisfied that’s actually true. > > Your second claim, like the first, reads as an apologist’s conjecture to explain how John was supposed to have written in Greek (or at all), when he and the other apostles were most likely low class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking laborers. Like so many conjectures, it takes “what could have happened, maybe, at least in theory” and tries to contort it into “what obviously happened” because otherwise they’d have to abandon their belief that a guy named John who knew Jesus really well wrote a Gospel attributed to him, a gospel which is the most miraculous and least detached from any kind of plausible, historical Jesus. > … 1. [Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Gospel_of_John) \*The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites – light and dark, truth and lies – which are themes within the Gospel. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.[citation needed] The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863). The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.\* > **[According to John;: The new look at the fourth Gospel,: Hunter, Archibald...](https://www.amazon.com/According-John-look-fourth-Gospel/dp/0664248500)** > > According to John;: The new look at the fourth Gospel, \[Hunter, Archibald Macbride\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. According to John;: The new look at the fourth Gospel _In the middle of the 20th century biblical scholars made a complete about-face - from viewing John’s Gospel as mostly fiction to recognizing that it merits serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concerning Jesus. In ten chapters, author Archibald M. Hunter (Professor of New Testament at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland), reviews the research of modern scholars - including newer and older manuscripts of the Gospel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and recent archaeological findings - and expounds on ten short parables specific to John. He concludes that the Johannine sayings of Jesus commonly rest on “words of the Lord,” exposing the person and work of Christ in depth, and presenting the claim and challenge of Christ in existential terms._ > **[The Gospel of John in Modern Interpretation](https://books.google.com/books?id=MOZoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=new%2Blook%2Bby%2BJohn%2BA.%2BT.%2BRobinson&source=bl&ots=X7ih3DvkFQ&sig=ACfU3U22k7OcmQWDTEjX4vlJulbeuLsWJw&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi03vyLxermAhVGvJ4KHaiAAOkQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20look%20by%20John%20A.%20T.%20Robinson&f=false)** > >  The Gospel of John in Modern Interpretation provides a unique look at the lives and work of eight interpreters who have significantly influenced Johannine studies over the last two centuries. The chapters contain short biographical sketches of the... So that totally debunks that statement of yours. Well, Matthew was a tax collector, a literate position, and Jesus was able to read and write to some extent. Not to mention, by this time rabbinical type schools were common. However, Ok, let us say the Apostle John, a young man at the time of the Crucifixion was functionally illiterate. Sine John lived another 70 years in a group of his followers, are you saying no one can learn to read and write in SEVENTY years? In any case, it’s common knowledge that men hired secretaries and scribes back then. Do you refute that? One of Johns disciples was the famed Polycarp, who was certainly literate. > **[Polycarp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp)** > > Polycarp (/ˈpɒlikɑːrp/; Greek: Πολύκαρπος, Polýkarpos; Latin: Polycarpus; AD 69 – 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake, then stabbed when the fire failed to consume his body. Polycarp is regarded as a saint and Church Father in the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism. > Both Irenaeus and Tertullian say that Polycarp had been a disciple of John th... Polycarp told the early church father Irenaeus that John wrote that Gospel. So we have more evidence that John wrote it. > **[Irenaeus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus)** > > Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/; Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist,\[ Cho... Another of John’s disciples was the also famous Papias of Hierapolis: > **[Papias of Hierapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis)** > > Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels. > Very little is... ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978/301 "2020-01-04T20:22:54Z")
“So that totally debunks that statement of yours.“ No, it really doesn’t, particularly given you’re dredging up a source from 1957 as evidence for the “modern” consensus. I mean, if we’re talking the literary movement, maybe, but not so much the latest work of scholars. ETA: And since you keep going to that same wiki, as if it supports your position, how about the line, “Most scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works.” The cite provided (3/4) is even more explicit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-for-certain-jesus-really-lived/844978.md?page=16)