Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

maximara


Did you mean there is a real book Tess and the Titanic by George P. Tummley which is a work of fiction, or did you mean there is a work of fiction which refers to a non-exiistent book of that title and author?

The later.

Either one might have parallels to issues that arise in an HJ-MJ discussion, and I have been unable to place this one after moderate search.

Try under "The Wreck of the Titan"

The moonphase would be wrong, and enough so to be possibly material to the events. I can find no "Edward James Truman" connected to either the real or any fictional Titanic's. However, while it is true that a P08 was German military issue, it was not exclusively used by Germans. I include that just as a reminder that what most usually happened is often a shaky guide to what actually happened. This would be especially liable to be true of any situation which was selected for scrutiny because it was different than other arguably similar events.

But you do have other material work work with: Edward James Truman is identified as First Officer of the Titanic and an Englishman. A quick search reveals that that position was held by a Scott named William McMaster Murdoch. So something on that detail is shown to be wonked.

Another search produces the fact that on April 14-15, 1912 the moon was well through its Last Quarter and nearly a New Moon (which happened Apr 17, 1912) So again another detail is wonked.

This was an example of how a real event (sinking of the Titanic) can be used to lead credence to fictional people who in reality never existed. This seems to be the case with John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas with regards to Jesus - historical people used to lead credence to a story and a person that may have no factual basis.

Besides the reason for the Jews having Jesus set 100 years earlier and crucified by one for their own Jewish kings has never really been explained. If Jesus was a person of actual recorded history why even try something like this (according to Price) as early as the 2nd century CE?

What other major figure of history who has stuff written about him at worst some 100 years after he supposedly lived has pick that century as an aspect of that history? There is no small sect who records Alexander the Great as living in the 5th century so why do we have this 100 year difference with Jews with regards to Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

...We have two Pauline versions of the death of Jesus: in several cases (Philippians 2, 8) Paul said that Jesus was crucified, and in other isolate example Paul says that the Jews killed Jesus.

You may extract your conclusion. It is clear to me.

So what about the other sources of antiquity? It is simply illogical and hopelessly naive to use a single source to determine what the Jesus cult believed in antiquity.

The Pauline writers were NOT the only sources of antiquity who claimed the Jews Killed the Son of God.

The BELIEF that the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God was fundamental--not isolated.


1. Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High........ But he himself was pierced by the Jews...

2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him..

3. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.

4. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? ........... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

5. Origen's Against Celsus 1

.... he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ ...

6. Hegesippus

God had long been pressing the faithless minds, from which crucifying Jesus Christ they defiled themselves by that wicked murder. He is the one whose death is the ruin of the Jews, born from Maria.

7. Lactantius "The Manner the Persecutors died"

I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

8. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 4

...the Jews had become the slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal life away from them), and, by killing the apostles and persecuting the Church ...

9. Clement's Stromata

“But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him

10 Chrysostom's Against the Jews

But at the time you slew Christ, you violated the Sabbath. ......Since that sin of yours surpassed all sins, it is useless to say your sins are keeping you from recovering your homeland. You are in the grip of your present sufferings not because of the sins committed in the rest of your lives but because of that one reckless act.

 

[Craig B]

So what about the other sources of antiquity? It is simply illogical and hopelessly naive to use a single source to determine what the Jesus cult believed in antiquity.

10 Chrysostom's Against the Jews

You being serious? You might as well quote Hitler on the topic of who killed Christ. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.asp

 

[eight bits]

max

OK. A Dr Who thing? Thanks for sorting that out.

You and I seem to be in general agreement that a work of fiction can have "real-life" elements, possibly miscarried (like Dan Brown's Versailles that is north of Paris). On the other hand, a work of non-fiction, too, can have miscarried "real-life" elements. There can't be too many people left who think that the Gsopels are the memoirs of the apostles, although that song from Jesus Christ, Superstar doesn't help.

Besides the reason for the Jews having Jesus set 100 years earlier and crucified by one for their own Jewish kings has never really been explained. If Jesus was a person of actual recorded history why even try something like this (according to Price) as early as the 2nd century CE?

So far as I know, the Talmudic claim is, or is presented as being, that there actually was such a person. Maybe there was, so what? If there was, then nobody "set" him anywhere, they just recall where and when he was. OK. There would be no "try" except maybe to see what might shake loose if you further claimed that Christians had confused their guy with this guy. Not much so far.

What other major figure of history who has stuff written about him at worst some 100 years after he supposedly lived has pick that century as an aspect of that history?

I believe you've mentioned that Claudius seems to have come unstuck in time accoridnig to some witings. He was a pretty big deal, and most living folks are confident of his historicity, and that Pilate didn't work for him.


David Mo

I don't understand what has to do the gibbeting with our issue. With “cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” Paul is matching the exposure of the stoned man's corpse and the body of crucified Jesus.

You personally may interpret the Deuteronomy verse as "some people, but not everyone, who hangs a tree," but Paul is surely not bound by your reading, not even if you were right (however that would be decided). Paul states what his reading is, pas, which is fairly read as "whoever." In any case, Paul does apply this curse to Jesus. Jesus was gibbeted according to Paul. There is nothing at all here about stoning.

Both are nailed on a wood and cursed by the Law.

I don't see how nailing even comes up in a discussion of Paul or Deuteronomy. The earliest mention of nailing Jesus that I can recall is in John, where Thomas expects the risen Jesus to have nail wounds, apparently recent and not scars from the old days in the building trades.

In any case, if you have an earlier source than John for the use of nails, either in Jesus' case or in connection with Deuteronomy, then I would be interested in knowing the citation.

Moving on,

Phillipians 2: 8 has no relation to Russian executions. Paul says there that Jesus was obedient to death, "thanatou de staurou," "death (conjunction) of the cross or stake." The conjunction de may be "and." So what? Paul commits himself to that Jesus died and that Jesus was on wood. That's uncontroversial. There is no Roman involvement stated or implied.

Whether there was any Roman involvement, I don't know. Paul doesn't say or imply one way or the other. There could be several reasons for that: maybe there wasn't any Roman involvement; or there was, but Paul didn't know whether there was; or he knew, but thought their involvement was irrelevant to (or awkward for) the Messainic aspect of Jesus' death which he teaches; or he just expected better of Jews and so is aggrieved by their having any role; ... - Paul doesn't say. You're entitled to speculate, but you can't speculate and complain that others speculate.

You most especially don't get to rewrite the proof texts that you cite to fit your agenda. That includes translating them your way, and not even acknowledging other possibilities less congenial to your platform.

I have no interest in discussing what's in your dictionary. I haven't read it. I have read Luke. He refers to Pharisees' archonton as people contemporary with Paul. It follows that Jews of the period can and may be referred to as archonton. There is nothing that implies that Paul meant only Romans, who themselves supported non-Roman client rulers in First Century Palestine. Surely those people are archonton. As are the big hats at the Temple.

Whoever wrote the story of the persecuted Jewish prophets killed by their people -Paul or not Paul-,

Paul didn't write II Chronicles or Jeremiah. Nor, for that matter, did Paul make up the more recent story of John the Baptist.

Jeremiah's death and other legends don't come from Chronicles.

As I wrote in my post, Jeremiah is a character in II Chronicles (35;25, for instance), has a book of his own, and I gave where to find in that book his aborted death sentence (which occurs just when II Chronicles breaks off its narration of how Jewish kings behaved). Jeremiah's eventual death has nothing to do with what Paul wrote.

If I were looking for other possible sources for Paul's reamrk, I wouldn't waste time with wikiwoo's theories about Lives of the Prophets. Both Matthew and Luke put the accusation in Jesus' mouth, with Paul's spin, at 23: 37-39 and 11: 47-49, respectively.

It would be contentious in an HJ thread to suggest that Paul was alluding to something he thought Jesus had said. Besides, I think Paul really is doing the obvious thing, which is to allude to the Jewish scripture whose mastery he so proudly flaunted. If there was an HJ, then Jesus might have drunk from the same well as Paul, or since it is "Q" stuff, maybe some of Paul's readers thought it was something Jesus ought to have said, and so now he does.

 

[IanS]

I have no problem with the origin of Paul's comparison between persecution to prophets (specifically Jeremiah) in the past and the death of Jesus. The tragic end of Jeremiah seems to be a well known story in Hebrew world. It can come from Chronicles or the popular beliefs. But if Paul had invented the persecution and death of Jesus by the Jews as image of Jeremiah, Jesus would have been stoned, and never crucified. Because crucifixion was a specific Roman penalty in his time.

David - I probably should not try to interject any comments into what is essentially and ongoing discussion between yourself and Eight-Bits. And please be assured that the following is not any kind of continuation of our previous disagreements, but -

- in your highlighted words above, are you assuming that Jesus must have died just a few years before Paul’s vision and at the time of the Roman occupation of that region?

Because, afaik there is actually no indication in Paul’s letters of when he thought Jesus had died. Afaik, Paul might even have imagined that Jesus had died many centuries before.

I just mention that for two quite obvious reasons. Firstly - iirc (without checking) in the OT it does suggest that more ancient Jewish practices did include forms of crucifixion or “hanging on a tree”. So if Paul was getting that idea from his personal interpretation of the OT, or even as I suggested earlier from a version of the Ascension of Isaiah (regarding that as part of “scripture" : in which respect see the quotes and links below), then Paul may quite easily have believed that Jesus had been put to death by some historic form of crucifixion at the hands of his own Jewish people.

And secondly - it seems that in one of Paul’s letters where it says that 500 brethren at once had seen the risen Jesus, and that some of those 500 were still alive at the time of Paul’s writing (supposedly circa. 55AD), that is often taken to mean Jesus must have been crucified within the living memory of those who remained alive from the 500. But that would of course not necessarily be true at all. Because those 500 only claimed to see a vision of a spiritual messiah at some date after they believed that messiah had died. So, on that basis, the messiah could have died centuries before their visions.

See below re the Ascension of Isaiah, it's remark about the "crucifixion" of Jesus and the possible date of that document -



http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/AscensionOfIsaiah.html
[
B]Ascension of Isaiah[/B]
4And he said to me, "The one who prevented you, this is the one [who (is) in charge of] the praise of the sixth heaven. 5And the one (who turned to you}, this is your Lord, the Lord, the Lord Christ, who is to be called in the world Jesus.
.
13The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. 16And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days. 17And then many of the righteous will ascend with him, whose spirits do not receive (their) robes until the Lord Christ ascends and they ascend with him.



The following comments from Richard Carrier -


http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282#ascension

Dating the Ascension of Isaiah
The latest expert on this treatise, Jonathan Knight (writing in the mid-1990s Ascension of Isaiah and Disciples of the Beloved One), dates the whole thing (insertions and all) to 112-138 A.D. Although I don’t agree with his reasoning, and I think his arguments for the text being a unity are terrible and his conclusions on that point wrong, it is notable that even the most recent expert, who has published the most extensively on this text, concludes it dates to the early second century, just a couple decades later than other experts would have it. So an honest historian would say this text most likely dates anywhere between the 70s AD and the 130s AD.
These termini make sense: there is no reason the text couldn’t have been written as early as or even earlier than our book of Revelation (which it in some respect resembles), and we have no evidence otherwise, while the fact that, in its completed form (i.e. with the interpolations of the later redactor), it is manifestly unaware of Hadrian’s dissolution of Jerusalem by 138 means it must have been written before then. So we have a terminus ante quem of 138 AD and a terminus post quem of 70 AD (as the interpolated text knows about the Jewish War). And that’s for the interpolated text. The Vision predates that. It therefore could even be earlier than 70. We don’t know. It’s even remotely possible that it’s pre-Christian and that Paul cites it as scripture. I deem that improbable, but it’s not impossible.

 

[dejudge]

You being serious? You might as well quote Hitler on the topic of who killed Christ. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.asp

You are not serious. I did not quote Hitler.

I quoted 10 writers of antiquity --Aristides, Justin, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Irenaeus and Hegesippus.


Even the supposed Jesus, the Son of God and God Creator claimed the Jews were trying to kill him in the NT.

The Jews admitted the blood of Jesus was on them and their children according to the NT.

1. Sinaiticus gMark 3

6 And the Pharisees went out immediately with the Herodians, and took counsel against him, that they might destroy him.

2. Sinaiticus gMark 8

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must ...... be put to death, and rise after three days.

3. Sinaiticus gJohn 7

19 Has not Moses given you the law? and none of you does the law. Why do you seek to kill me?

4. Sinaiticus gJohn 8

37 I know that you are Abraham's posterity; but you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you.

5.Sinaiticus gJohn 8

40 but now you seek to kill me, a man that has spoken to you the truth, which I heard from God: this Abraham did not.

6. Sinaiticus gMatthew 27:25

[]25 And all the people answered and said: His blood be upon us and upon our children.

 

[Craig B]

See next post.

 

[Craig B]

And secondly - it seems that in one of Paul’s letters where it says that 500 brethren at once had seen the risen Jesus, and that some of those 500 were still alive at the time of Paul’s writing (supposedly circa. 55AD), that is often taken to mean Jesus must have been crucified within the living memory of those who remained alive from the 500. But that would of course not necessarily be true at all. Because those 500 only claimed to see a vision of a spiritual messiah at some date after they believed that messiah had died. So, on that basis, the messiah could have died centuries before their visions.

That does not seem to me to be a natural reading of this passage.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The problem is not merely the "living memory" of the survivors of the 500+ seers, but even more so the living memory of Cephas and the Twelve, who saw him even earlier. In default of a statement by Paul that Jesus was killed in the remote past, the natural reading of all this is that the death happened not long before the visions. And of course Paul claims later to have met Cephas, though you deny that he could ever have obtained any (or indeed this) information from him.

 

[dejudge]

That does not seem to me to be a natural reading of this passage. The problem is not merely the "living memory" of the survivors of the 500+ seers, but even more so the living memory of Cephas and the Twelve, who saw him even earlier. In default of a statement by Paul that Jesus was killed in the remote past, the natural reading of all this is that the death happened not long before the visions. And of course Paul claims later to have met Cephas, though you deny that he could ever have obtained any (or indeed this) information from him.

Your post is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence for your HJ argument.

You discredit even the so-called authentic Pauline writings.

It cannot be assumed that anything about the supposed Jesus and disciples in the Pauline Corpus is credible when there were multiple writers under the name of Paul.

You very well know that claims are NOT directly related to veracity or historicity.

You forgot that the Pauline writers CLAIMED they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead, that they got their Gospel from the revelation of the resurrected Jesus and conferred with non-historical beings.

 

[Brainache]

Your post is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence for your HJ argument.

You discredit even the so-called authentic Pauline writings.

It cannot be assumed that anything about the supposed Jesus and disciples in the Pauline Corpus is credible when there were multiple writers under the name of Paul.

You very well know that claims are NOT directly related to veracity or historicity.

You forgot that the Pauline writers CLAIMED they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead, that they got their Gospel from the revelation of the resurrected Jesus and conferred with non-historical beings.

If these arguments have any merit, why don't real Historians use them?

Why is it that only ignorant crackpots use these arguments dejudge?

 

[Craig B]

Your post is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence for your HJ argument.

You discredit even the so-called authentic Pauline writings.

It cannot be assumed that anything about the supposed Jesus and disciples in the Pauline Corpus is credible when there were multiple writers under the name of Paul.

You very well know that claims are NOT directly related to veracity or historicity.

You forgot that the Pauline writers CLAIMED they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead, that they got their Gospel from the revelation of the resurrected Jesus and conferred with non-historical beings.

Take all that up with IanS. He's the one who referred to the passage, though he neither identified it nor cited it directly, I admit. If IanS can have an opinion about what the words of the passage mean so can I. As to "veracity or historicity", may I tell you this, dejudge? I don't believe Cephas or twelve people or five hundred people really saw Jesus after he died.

 

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS
And secondly - it seems that in one of Paul’s letters where it says that 500 brethren at once had seen the risen Jesus, and that some of those 500 were still alive at the time of Paul’s writing (supposedly circa. 55AD), that is often taken to mean Jesus must have been crucified within the living memory of those who remained alive from the 500. But that would of course not necessarily be true at all. Because those 500 only claimed to see a vision of a spiritual messiah at some date after they believed that messiah had died. So, on that basis, the messiah could have died centuries before their visions. .

That does not seem to me to be a natural reading of this passage.

Why not?

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The problem is not merely the "living memory" of the survivors of the 500+ seers, but even more so the living memory of Cephas and the Twelve, who saw him even earlier. In default of a statement by Paul that Jesus was killed in the remote past, the natural reading of all this is that the death happened not long before the visions. And of course Paul claims later to have met Cephas, though you deny that he could ever have obtained any (or indeed this) information from him.

You are making an assumption. It does not say Cephas, the Twelve or anyone else saw anything except a spiritual vision of the “risen” Jesus. It simply says that according to Paul, others before him claimed to see the same sort of spiritual vision of the messiah, not whilst any messiah was ever alive, but at some unspecified time after they all believed that messiah had died … though afaik at no stage does it say that Paul or anyone else had any idea when that messiah had supposedly died.

 

[IanS]

Take all that up with IanS. He's the one who referred to the passage, though he neither identified it nor cited it directly, I admit. If IanS can have an opinion about what the words of the passage mean so can I. As to "veracity or historicity", may I tell you this, dejudge? I don't believe Cephas or twelve people or five hundred people really saw Jesus after he died.

I don't believe I did express an opinion on that particular point regarding the passage you are talking about. And actually it was you (rather than me) who just quoted that particular passage from 1-Corinthians 15:3.

What I said about it was not so much an “opinion”, like your “assumption” that Jesus must have recently died. What I said about it was not an “opinion” but seemingly a “fact”, i.e. that iirc the passage does not in fact say that any one of them had any idea of when they believed the messiah had died … all that Paul’s letter says is that others before him had claimed to see some similar sort of spiritual vision of the messiah, but not where any of them offered any opinion of when they believed that messiah had died.

 

[Brainache]

Why not?








You are making an assumption. It does not say Cephas, the Twelve or anyone else saw anything except a spiritual vision of the “risen” Jesus. It simply says that according to Paul, others before him claimed to see the same sort of spiritual vision of the messiah, not whilst any messiah was ever alive, but at some unspecified time after they all believed that messiah had died … though afaik at no stage does it say that Paul or anyone else had any idea when that messiah had supposedly died.

Except that Paul says one of those people was Jesus' Brother.

We have already established that "Brother Of The Lord" actually meant "Brother", not cousin, and not Disciple or Apostle.

So now you think that Paul was under the impression that James had never met a living Jesus, in spite of all the Ancient sources (Josephus included) saying that they were Brothers.

You still think that this is a reference to Moses or a "spirit Jesus" or something, even though we have no evidence anywhere for a "spirit Jesus" belief in the first century.

Why?

 

[dejudge]

Your post is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence for your HJ argument.

You discredit even the so-called authentic Pauline writings.

It cannot be assumed that anything about the supposed Jesus and disciples in the Pauline Corpus is credible when there were multiple writers under the name of Paul.

You very well know that claims are NOT directly related to veracity or historicity.

You forgot that the Pauline writers CLAIMED they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead, that they got their Gospel from the revelation of the resurrected Jesus and conferred with non-historical beings.

If these arguments have any merit, why don't real Historians use them?

Why is it that only ignorant crackpots use these arguments dejudge?

What utter absurdity. What lies!! What crackpot nonsense!!

Please just go and get familiar with real historians.

You have confirmed that you virtually have NO knowledge of the arguments used by real historians.

Richard Carrier, an historian, actually argued that Bart Ehrman's HJ argument are void of logic and facts.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282

I already exposed all the egregious errors of fact and logic in Bart Ehrman’s sad armchair failure at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

 

[dejudge]

Take all that up with IanS. He's the one who referred to the passage, though he neither identified it nor cited it directly, I admit. If IanS can have an opinion about what the words of the passage mean so can I. As to "veracity or historicity", may I tell you this, dejudge? I don't believe Cephas or twelve people or five hundred people really saw Jesus after he died.

Why do you not want to take responsibility for what you post?

I have exposed that your argument is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

Did you not post this statement?

...The problem is not merely the "living memory" of the survivors of the 500+ seers, but even more so the living memory of Cephas and the Twelve, who saw him even earlier. In default of a statement by Paul that Jesus was killed in the remote past, the natural reading of all this is that the death happened not long before the visions. And of course Paul claims later to have met Cephas, though you deny that he could ever have obtained any (or indeed this) information from him.

It is indeed void of logic and facts because you have ZERO pre 70 CE evidence.

The Pauline writer claimed Cephas, the Twelve and the over 500 saw Jesus AFTER he was dead and resurrected.

The Pauline writer also claimed Jesus was the Last Adam, a Spirit.

When, in what year, did Cephas and the Twelve see Jesus, the Last Adam, the Spirit?

 

[Brainache]

What utter absurdity. What lies!! What crackpot nonsense!!

Please just go and get familiar with real historians.

You have confirmed that you virtually have NO knowledge of the arguments used by real historians.

Richard Carrier, an historian, actually argued that Bart Ehrman's HJ argument are void of logic and facts.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Neither Richard Carrier, nor Robert Eisenman use the arguments that you use. Neither of them agree with your "Hoax Theory", so I don't see why you would cite them as support for your stupid arguments.

Why you think an unsolved problem equals an unsolvable problem, is beyond me.

 

[dejudge]

Neither Richard Carrier, nor Robert Eisenman use the arguments that you use. Neither of them agree with your "Hoax Theory", so I don't see why you would cite them as support for your stupid arguments.

Why you think an unsolved problem equals an unsolvable problem, is beyond me.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know why you think YOUR unsolved problem is solvable without evidence.


You have already confirmed you don't know the arguments of real historians.

Real historians argue that there is virtually no ACTUAL contempotary evidence for an HJ.


The NT is a just a compilation of STUPID Ghost stories of God, Jesus his Son, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, a Holy Ghost, Suicidal demons, Talking Clouds, Resurrected dead, and conferences with Ghosts.

The HJ question has been SOLVED----The HJ argument is void of logic, facts, pre 70 CE evidence and initiated by Bible Believers.

 

[Brainache]

You don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know why you think YOUR unsolved problem is solvable without evidence.


You have already confirmed you don't know the arguments of real historians.

Real historians argue that there is virtually no ACTUAL contempotary evidence for an HJ.


The NT is a just a compilation of STUPID Ghost stories of God, Jesus his Son, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, a Holy Ghost, Suicidal demons, Talking Clouds, Resurrected dead, and conferences with Ghosts.

The HJ question has been SOLVED----The HJ argument is void of logic, facts, pre 70 CE evidence and initiated by Bible Believers.

Please publish a book, I need a good laugh.

 

[maximara]

max

I believe you've mentioned that Claudius seems to have come unstuck in time accoridnig to some witings. He was a pretty big deal, and most living folks are confident of his historicity, and that Pilate didn't work for him.

You are misremembering. The passage in question is "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." by Irenaeus.

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ:
Picking other timelines from the Gospels

The key issue is the title "King of the Jews". When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea 4 BCE – 6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BCE - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE). Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power in 41 CE. Furthermore, while some later books have called Herod Agrippa II "king of the Jews", he in truth never ruled over the Judea province. (Gelb, Norman (2010) Kings of the Jews: The Origins of the Jewish Nation pg 205)

So the only Herods close to the supposed life of Jesus (c. 6 BCE to c. 36 CE) that were "King of the Jews" (i.e. ruled the Judea province) were Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I. Moreover, we have a reasonable history of Herod Agrippa I from 34 CE (death of John the Baptist) to his death in 44 CE:

* Due to expressing the desire for Tiberius to hurry up and die so his friend Caligula could become emperor, Herod Agrippa I was thrown in prison and not released until 37 CE when Caligula came to power. By that time Pontius Pilate had been replaced by Marcellus.
* While Herod Agrippa I did come to Judea as governor in the final year of Caligula's rule (41 CE), he answered to Prefect Marcellus, who in turn answered to Tetrarch Herod Antipas.
* Due to Herod Agrippa I's advice, Claudius became Caesar in 41 and as a reward a year later Marcellus and Herod Antipas were replaced by Herod Agrippa I, resulting in him being "like Herod the Great before him, king of the Jews." (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)

More over in Against Heresies 2:22:4, Irenaeus argued that Jesus had to be a minimum of at least 46 if not 50 years old when he was crucified. Irenaeus himself quotes Luke, establishing that Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized and when this was: in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (c. 29 CE).

Even if you push Jesus's supposed birth date in Matthew to c. 6 BCE (Herod the Great killing children two years old and younger), putting Jesus at 34 in c. 29 CE (there is no year zero), you don't get to the required minimum 46 years of age until 41 CE, which requires the Caesar to be Claudius (41-54 CE) and the Herod "king of the Jews" to be Agrippa I (42-44 CE). That leaves the problem of Pontius Pilate, who not only had been recalled to Rome in 36 CE, but with a Herod "king of the Jews" in charge would not have been needed.

----

It is not Claudius who becomes "unstuck" but Pontius Pilate and Against Heresies gives us a hint as to why: Irenaeus is trying to hold to his idea that Jesus was past the age of 46 when he was crucified. Yet in Against Heresies 1:27:2 this very same Irenaeus wrote:

"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

---

So either Irenaeus believed Pontius Pilate was procurator under Tiberius and became governor under Claudius, he wasn't sure when Pontius Pilate's rule was, or he was trying to make a philosophical argument and ignoring that history was telling him it was rubbish.

Epiphanius has much the same issues when he writes "or the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock." and yet elsewhere puts Jesus firmly in the 1st century CE.

These and similar issues point to early Christians either being totally ignorant of actual history or disregarding it when it suit their goals...neither of which is particularly helpful if you are using them to show Jesus was an actual person of 1st century Galilee rather then some composite possibly time shifted character ala Robin Hood.

This brings up another issue: why do so many people associated with Jesus have this time shift problem?

Why is Herod the Great death time shifted to 1 BCE by some people?

Why doe John the Baptist's death come off as a game of pick that year between 29 and 36 CE?

Why is Pontius Pilate shifted from being procurator under Tiberius to being "governor" Claudius?

Why is James the Just, supposedly Jesus actual biological brother, have an 62 vs 69 CE death?

Why is Herod Archelaus given the title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ when it was his father Herod the Great that had that title and the next Herod to have that title wouldn't come to power until 41 CE?

Why does everything regarding Jesus come off as it was a bad episode of Mister Peabody?