# Resolved: Jesus did not exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230 "2011-01-03T16:11:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/81 "2011-01-05T16:35:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He says it in Greek, which is not the Tetragrammaton, and the Messiah, in Jewish expectation, was not God anyway. > > I never said Jesus himself was ahistorical, just that the nativity stories are. I’m not a mythicist personally. I think Jesus probably existed, but that the writers of the gospels didn’t know much about his real biography and had to improvise. I know, so that question is not really directed at you. I agree that the Gospel authors had to explain Jesus’ being from Galilee. But the question is, why? Obviously there was some sort of oral tradition that Jesus came from there and not from Bethlehem as expected – they couldn’t just say he was from Bethlehem all along. So I think this points to there being some set of historical facts they were trying to conform their account to. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/82 "2011-01-05T16:37:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But he didn’t claim to be God. Yes, Mark has Jesus say _Eimi_ (“I am”) in Greek. That does not amount to a claim to be God. It’s only the NAME if it’s said in Hebrew, and even then, saying the name, in and of itself, is not blasphemy (you have to curse the name) and is not a claim to Godhood. If he’d not claimed to be God (not even by using “I am” but by forgiving sins and so forth), why was he accused of blasphemy? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/83 "2011-01-05T16:39:13Z")
See, I think you’re saying “Mark is wrong about Jesus being charged with blasphemy, because claiming to be the Messiah is not blasphemous.” I think it’s just as valid to say “The charge of blasphemy indicated that Jesus was claiming to be more than just the Messiah” without having to assume that Mark was mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/84 "2011-01-05T16:40:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > All four of the canaonical Gospel authorship traditions are spurious as well, though. None of them were written by apostles or people who knew apostles. Bull. The Gospel of Mark is commonly accepted to have been written by Mark, the travelling companion of Peter. A few may contest this, but it is the prevailing view. The Gospel of Luke is pretty much universally accepted to have been written by Luke, a travelling companion of Paul. Paul is considered an Apostle, and even if he were not, he knew the other Apostles, so it’s likely that Luke did as well. Some may contest that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by Matthew and John respectively, but this is far from a universally accepted view. There is significant disagreement on that subject. In his typical fashion though, **Diogenes** presents as incontestible truth the claim that the authors were NOT Apostles. In fact, he goes beyond that; he claims and that they could not have possibly known the Apostles, which is a claim that even liberal scholars would be hard-pressed to argue for. Frankly, it’s because of gross exaggerations like these that one should always take **Dio** ’s claims with a huge grain of salt. ---
**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 5, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/85 "2011-01-05T16:51:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I certainly missed it if you explained the contradiction. You are _probably_ a brilliant scholar of pre-history who indeed knows what he’s talking about. But if you spent more than one second reading the response you’re answering here and still make this response, then you’ve failed to engage your intellect for reading comprehension. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Hyksos… I believe that the myth is probably base on a garbled memory of it, though, as does the consensus of modern scholarship. Again, I’ve no doubt that you know far _far_ more about archaeological research than I do. _ **But you give no cite whatsoever** _. The Wikipedia article on Exodus goes in to some detail, and mentions some theories, without a single word on Hyksos. I’m afraid I shall henceforth ignore whatever you say in future _ **if it doesn’t come with a Cite** _. I’ll miss out on your wisdom and expertise. My loss. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/86 "2011-01-05T16:53:21Z")
As a non-Christian, there is nothing inherently difficult to believe about the basics of Jesus’ life-story, stripped of its purely supernatural elements. Rabble-rousing rabbis being crucified by Romans was nothing new or particularly unusual in Judea during the Roman occupation. It isn’t like the Exodus story, or worse yet the Noah story, which is more obviously mythological. The mythological elements of the Jesus story are there, it is true (raising the dead, blasting fig trees, etc.), but in its essence the story is about a guy who formed a cult-like group of believers who made all sorts of claims about him, was caught as a rabble-rouser, and was executed. No-one doubts there were lots of such activity at the time … so I’m unsure what the basis of the debate even is. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/87 "2011-01-05T16:56:52Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I know, so that question is not really directed at you. I agree that the Gospel authors had to explain Jesus’ being from Galilee. But the question is, why? Obviously there was some sort of oral tradition that Jesus came from there and not from Bethlehem as expected – they couldn’t just say he was from Bethlehem all along. So I think this points to there being some set of historical facts they were trying to conform their account to. This is a valid point in favor of historicity. An example of a criterion of embarassment. The authors (all four of them) apparently were aware of a Galilean origin already being attached to Jesus and had to explain it. His baptism by John is another example, since it appears to put him in a subordinate poistion to John and implies that he had to be cleansed of sins. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/88 "2011-01-05T17:07:30Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > If he’d not claimed to be God (not even by using “I am” but by forgiving sins and so forth), why was he accused of blasphemy? Because Mark wanted to shift the blame for his crucifixion away from the Romans and on to Jewish authorities. Mark’s entire trial is full of procedural and historical errors and appears to be his own literary construct rather than a historical account from living memory. Something like what’s described in John is more plausible. That the Temple authorities detained him and interrogated him informally before turning him over to Pilate (most likely for causing a disturbance at the Temple during Passover), and Mark turned this into a formal trial and conviction (indepently and prior to any knowledge of John’s Gospel, of course. I’m suggesting that John might actually retain the more accurate historical kernel, though). Ironically, while claiming to be the Messiah was (and is) not a crime under Jewish law, it was sedition under Roman law since it was essentially a claim to be the King of the Jews and a challenge to Roman authority in Judea. I actually think that the nailing of the placard sarcastically calling Jesus the King of the Jews (the “INRI” taunt) is historically plausible. It’s the exactly the kind of point the Romans would have wanted to make. It served to squelch potential insurgencies before they got started. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/89 "2011-01-05T17:10:01Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Bull. The Gospel of Mark is commonly accepted to have been written by Mark, the travelling companion of Peter. A few may contest this, but it is the prevailing view. The Gospel of Luke is pretty much universally accepted to have been written by Luke, a travelling companion of Paul. Paul is considered an Apostle, and even if he were not, he knew the other Apostles, so it’s likely that Luke did as well. > > Some may contest that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by Matthew and John respectively, but this is far from a universally accepted view. There is significant disagreement on that subject. In his typical fashion though, **Diogenes** presents as incontestible truth the claim that the authors were NOT Apostles. In fact, he goes beyond that; he claims and that they could not have possibly known the Apostles, which is a claim that even liberal scholars would be hard-pressed to argue for. > > Frankly, it’s because of gross exaggerations like these that one should always take **Dio** ’s claims with a huge grain of salt. You’re wrong on basically every account here, and show a lack of awareness of actual scholarly consensus. Not one of those traditions is currently accepted as authentic by critical scholars anymore. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/90 "2011-01-05T17:19:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You are _probably_ a brilliant scholar of pre-history who indeed knows what he’s talking about. But if you spent more than one second reading the response you’re answering here and still make this response, then you’ve failed to engage your intellect for reading comprehension. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you refute the contradiction or can’t you? > [@](#): > > Again, I’ve no doubt that you know far _far_ more about archaeological research than I do. _ **But you give no cite whatsoever** _. The Wikipedia article on Exodus goes in to some detail, and mentions some theories, without a single word on Hyksos. I am at a loss as to what you want a cite for. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid I shall henceforth ignore whatever you say in future _ **if it doesn’t come with a Cite** _. I’ll miss out on your wisdom and expertise. My loss. 😃 Run away, run away. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/91 "2011-01-05T17:22:35Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > As a non-Christian, there is nothing inherently difficult to believe about the basics of Jesus’ life-story, stripped of its purely supernatural elements. > > Rabble-rousing rabbis being crucified by Romans was nothing new or particularly unusual in Judea during the Roman occupation. > > It isn’t like the Exodus story, or worse yet the Noah story, which is more obviously mythological. The mythological elements of the Jesus story are there, it is true (raising the dead, blasting fig trees, etc.), but in its essence the story is about a guy who formed a cult-like group of believers who made all sorts of claims about him, was caught as a rabble-rouser, and was executed. No-one doubts there were lots of such activity at the time … so I’m unsure what the basis of the debate even is. I think my point is that if we boil down the definition of Jesus to what you’ve just boiled it down to it becomes meaningless, IMHO. We are almost certain that cult leader rabble rousers were executed by Roman authorities with some regularity. How does that make them Jesus? The historical King Arthur Existed! Why? Because we know there were a bunch of kings commanding small groups of warriors during the migration period, and there were plenty of round tables! So that there was a king, with a round table and some warriors around him is not implausible. Well, no, it’s very likely to have happened, but why are any of these kings King Arthur? Did he draw Excalibur from the stone? Did Lancelot steal his girl? Did he go searching for the holy Grail? Maybe it’s just semantics, and I’m being pedantic, but the best we could say is that one or more of those kings may have been the root of the Mythologicla King Arthur, just like we can say one or more of those Judean cult leaders who got wacked by the Romans may have been the root of the Jesus mythology. Jesus as per the Gospels NO ONE IS. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/92 "2011-01-05T17:23:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I have read your posts. Not very carefully, obviously. Here is what I said in post #49: > [@ITR Champion](#): > > There an article by Stephen Farris entitled “On Discerning Semitic Sources in Luke” that argues persuasively that certain linguistic details in chapter 1-2 of Luke (up to Mary and Joseph finding Jesus in the Temple) are best explained if that material were written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. This is not true for any other material in Luke. Since Luke says at the start that there are many documents circulating concerning the life of Jesus and that his goal in authoring the Gospel is to combine and put forth a single source, it seems quite likely that he had an Aramaic source for those two chapters distinct from his other sources. Hence I agree with what you say. Even if I accepted, for the sake of argument, that everything in Luke 1-2 was fabricated it wouldn’t have a bearing on the main thrust of the reliability of that Gospel or any other. Endlessly berating me for not explaining the contradiction between the dates for Herod and Quirinius accomplishes nothing because I’ve never claimed that I’ve explained it. _That_ is why I wish you would read by posts before responding to them. So that you can actually respond to what I say, not to some imaginary argument that you like rebutting but which I never made. > [@](#): > > Why does Mark have a bunch of pigs jump off a cliff in Gerasa into the Sea of Galilee when Gerasa was 30 miles away from that lake and had three rivers in between them? Mark 5 actually says that this incident occurred “in the region of the Gerasenes”. ([Passage](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205&version=NIV)) The Greek word translated as region is “chora”, which frequently applied to large, loosely-defined areas. We have no authoritative map of what the “region of the Gerasenes” and it may have included holdings on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Another possibility is simply that Mark, writing mainly for an audience outside of Palestine, would write “region of the Gerasenes” because Gerasa was a much larger city than Gadara and thus more likely to be familiar to the intended audience. ([Cite](http://christianthinktank.com/giddygaddy.html) discussing both possibilities) In the worst case this would be a tiny error of the sort that tends to arise in oral transmission as already discussed and would not cast any doubt on the reliability of the events described. I appreciate the fact that you’re actually providing examples and will try to respond if others folks don’t respond first. However, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from all of the following tactics: - Dismissing arguments without giving any reason for dismissing them. - Dismissing arguments by calling them “insane”, “idiotic”, “moronic”, “crazy”, “woo”, “laughable jokes”, “bilge”, or any other meaningless insult. - Dismissing arguments by pointing out that they are from apologists. - Wasting time pointing out that a certain person doesn’t have a Ph.D., or his or her Ph.D. is not in a particular specialty, or the Ph.D. was not awarded by a sufficiently prestigious institution, or the material in question was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc… - Announcing that you have no intention of reading my cites. - Ignoring requests for cites. - Responding to requests for cites by repeating yourself. - Appealing to supposed scholarly consensus without a cite. - Including phrases like “I guarantee…” as if guarantees in anonymous internet debates meant anything. If you do these things, I’ll take it as an indication that you’re not honestly interested in debating. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/93 "2011-01-05T17:25:52Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Again, I’ve no doubt that you know far _far_ more about archaeological research than I do. _ **But you give no cite whatsoever** _. The Wikipedia article on Exodus goes in to some detail, and mentions some theories, without a single word on Hyksos. The [Philistines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines) may have been the same as the [Hyksos,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos) or related. See [Sea Peoples.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_peoples) How that fits into any **alternative** to the Biblical narrative, I’m not sure. For a real debunking of Exodus and Joshua, see [_The Bible Unearthed,_](http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294247852&sr=8-1) by Neal Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. Their conclusion is that the cultural-biological ancestors of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews **always,** back to paleolithic times, lived in the area around Jerusalem (where the most ancient archaelogical digs differ from contemporaneous sites elsewhere in Canaan in lacking pig bones). And there never was a united empire of Israel-Judah. When the Assyrians conquered Israel, Israelite priests fled south to Judah and changed the religion there. The whole story of the flight from Eqypt and the conquest of Canaan and the empire of David and Solomon seems to have been invented in the time of Josiah, King of Judah, as a national-propaganda myth – because in those days, right of conquest was generally understood to confer better title to territory than ancient occupation. Josiah’s reign was also the time when the religion became definitely and exclusively monotheistic. (There **is** some extrabiblical evidence that David existed, or at least that Judah’s neighbors recognized its kings as the “House of David”.) ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/94 "2011-01-05T17:50:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because Mark wanted to shift the blame for his crucifixion away from the Romans and on to Jewish authorities. Mark’s entire trial is full of procedural and historical errors and appears to be his own literary construct rather than a historical account from living memory. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re wrong on basically every account here, and show a lack of awareness of actual scholarly consensus. Not one of those traditions is currently accepted as authentic by critical scholars anymore. Again, you provide no cites for either of these assertions (although personally I recognize the doubt concerning traditional Gospel authorship, you have provided no evidence for it). ---
**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:** [January 5, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/95 "2011-01-05T17:50:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Not very carefully, obviously. Here is what I said in post #49: Nothing in that addresses my question, and it’s bullshit anyway. We know what Luke’s sources were,. They were Mark and Q - both Greek compositions. > [@](#): > > Endlessly berating me for not explaining the contradiction between the dates for Herod and Quirinius accomplishes nothing because I’ve never claimed that I’ve explained it. _That_ is why I wish you would read by posts before responding to them. So that you can actually respond to what I say, not to some imaginary argument that you like rebutting but which I never made. So you acknowldege that there IS a contradiction? > [@](#): > > Mark 5 actually says that this incident occurred “in the region of the Gerasenes”. ([Passage](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205&version=NIV)) The Greek word translated as region is “chora”, which frequently applied to large, loosely-defined areas. _chora_ means “fields” or “open spaces” and in conction with cities it refers to the countryside or rural areas outside them, but Gerasa was not a metropolis with a 30 mile radius of farm territory around it. > [@](#): > > We have no authoritative map of what the “region of the Gerasenes” You can find one at my link upthread. > [@](#): > > and it may have included holdings on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. This is reaching and implausible since there were three other Decapolis cities between Gerasa and the lake. Another possibility is simply that Mark, writing mainly for an audience outside of Palestine, would write “region of the Gerasenes” because Gerasa was a much larger city than Gadara and thus more likely to be familiar to the intended audience. [/quote] Matthew indeed tried to correct from Gerasa to Gadara (Luke retained Gerasa), but Gadara is still 6 miles from the lake and there are no cliffs between it and the lake. > [@](#): > > I appreciate the fact that you’re actually providing examples and will try to respond if others folks don’t respond first. However, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from all of the following tactics: > > - Dismissing arguments without giving any reason for dismissing them. > - Dismissing arguments by calling them “insane”, “idiotic”, “moronic”, “crazy”, “woo”, “laughable jokes”, “bilge”, or any other meaningless insult. > - Dismissing arguments by pointing out that they are from apologists. > - Wasting time pointing out that a certain person doesn’t have a Ph.D., or his or her Ph.D. is not in a particular specialty, or the Ph.D. was not awarded by a sufficiently prestigious institution, or the material in question was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc… > - Announcing that you have no intention of reading my cites. > - Ignoring requests for cites. > - Responding to requests for cites by repeating yourself. > - Appealing to supposed scholarly consensus without a cite. > - Including phrases like “I guarantee…” as if guarantees in anonymous internet debates meant anything. > > If you do these things, I’ll take it as an indication that you’re not honestly interested in debating. I’ll agree to most of these, but I’m not to accept appeals to apologist cites unless the apologist can actually back himself 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:** [January 5, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/96 "2011-01-05T17:54:57Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Again, you provide no cites for either of these assertions (although personally I recognize the doubt concerning traditional Gospel authorship, you have provided no evidence for it). I didn’t see any cite for the assertion that scholarly consensus _accepts_ the authorship traditions, so let’s see that assertion supported first. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/97 "2011-01-05T18:17:19Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I think that the objection regarding Quirinius is, frankly, a bit petty. There are any number of reasons why it could have been Quirinius, or why the original Greek text should be interpreted as referring to a time that predated his term. There is also some ambiguity in how the term for “governor” should be translated. [(cite)](http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html). From your link: “Also, it is worth noting that we have a MS that describes a soldier who was ‘legate of Syria’ TWICE during this timeframe. There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.” The ole, “he must have been governor twice” defense. Your link brings up that they found a single MS who was ‘legate of Syria’ TWICE during this timeframe.” It appears they are inferring this, and it doesn’t exude confidence if they are undecided on even which one which they got from a single MS. I doubt this would have escaped Josephus’ attention who was probably closer to the time in question. > [@](#): > > Bull. The Gospel of Mark is commonly accepted to have been written by Mark, the travelling companion of Peter. A few may contest this, but it is the prevailing view. The Gospel of Luke is pretty much universally accepted to have been written by Luke, a travelling companion of Paul. Paul is considered an Apostle, and even if he were not, he knew the other Apostles, so it’s likely that Luke did as well. Only from conservative apologist sources will anyone think these books were written by the names later added onto them. Nothing mainstream about it at all. They are all guesses, and second century guesses at that. When it takes well into the second century for the names to even first start being referred to as the Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, etc, you give far more latitude on the authorship of these books than what mainstream scholarship would. And who knows how many interpolations have been added to them over the years, along with the many problems of mistranslations. Not something I would stake my life on. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/98 "2011-01-05T18:19:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > (BTW, I clicked on the link to Cecil’s articles and found Our Leader’s articles on Bible dates and authorship useful. Those links that covered the dates I looked at on this thread are not from Cecil. He only briefly covered Jesus’ historicity with a couple of paragraphs in another link, and the dating of the Gospels are the staff reports from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, as Dex explained they were written by him and Eutychus. Good bib’ btw, and I have a few of those works myself. There is a wide range of dates given for the Gospels. Don’t have the particular source at this time, but I’m sure Joseph McCabe was one of them that pointed out that those early dates assigned to the Gospels still didn’t have the miracle stories added then either. Those came later. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/99 "2011-01-05T18:23:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The death-year of the Buddha is traditionally 544 BC (easy to remember as my country of residence uses Buddhist calendar) but some scholars instead make his death 5th-century BC, and some even 4th-century BC! Yet, AFAIK, all of these scholars accept that he was an historic person. Dating estimates of Lao-Tzu are even more dispersed than those of Buddha. IIRC, there are several important medieval kings whose birth-years are unrecorded. It’s probably reasonable more so than not to assume they were based on some historical figure, as was the possibility of Jesus, but dropping all of the supernatural and miracle stories, and possibly being crucified by Pontius too. The further we go back in time, it’s even less reason to put too much credence on the whole kit and caboodle, which includes the reliability of dates when it is generally all over the place. They can get in the ballpark, but that’s about it. E.g., Remsberg came up with this list in his day on Christ’s birth: > [@](#): > > At least ten different opinions regarding the year of Christ’s birth have been advanced by Christian scholars. Dodwell places it in 6 B.C., Chrysostom 5 B.C., Usher, whose opinion is most commonly received, 4 B.C., Irenaeus 3 B.C., Jerome 2 B.C., Tertullian 1 B.C.. Some modern authorities place it in 1 A.D., others 2 A.D., an still others in 3 A.D.; while those who accept Luke as infallible authority much place it as late as 7 a.D. In layman’s terms, I believe this is also referred to as “covering all the bases” and also CYA. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/100 "2011-01-05T18:31:16Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > There is a wide range of dates given for the Gospels. Don’t have the particular source at this time, but I’m sure Joseph McCabe was one of them that pointed out **that those early dates assigned to the Gospels still didn’t have the miracle stories added then either. Those came later.** I don’t think I understand this last part. We don’t have any manuscripts that don’t have the miracle stories, so how do we know when they were added? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230.md?page=6)