StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:50 pm
Given that you, maryhelena, have presented no ancient evidence that your retrojected modern-view 100 year measurements are relevant, the question of Jesus historicity is decided on other grounds.
Oh dear...
Stephen, those who support a historical Jesus have no facts, no historical evidence to support their assertion
Historical facts:
1) 63 bc. The Roman, Pompey, entered the Jerusalen temple. Judaea became subject to Rome.
2) 37 ce. Roman Emperor Tiberius died.
3) There is around 100 years between these two historical events.
The gospel writers placed their Jesus story in the time of Pilate. Pilate being governor of Judaea during the time of Tiberius.
The gospel crucifixion story canot go beyond 37 ce.
Why did the gospel writers confine their Jesus crucifixion story to the time of Tiberius ? A Jesus historicist would simply answer that was because Jesus lived under Tiberius. But that is an assertion. An ahistoricist, someone who rejects the notion of a historical Jesus, would answer the question with an argument based on history.
37 ce is 100 year from 63 bc. Indicating that the gospel writers were not only interested in the death of Tiberius but also interested in Hasmonean Jewish history.
The gospel writers could have placed their Jesus story, a story about a literary Jesus figure, in any time slot. That they chose the time of Tiberius, a time ending in 37 ce, indicates that this time slot had, for them, historical relevance. That relevance being the 100 year connection to 63 bc. That relevance being Hasmonean history.
Rejection of the historical Jesus assumption throws open the door to history. History that can throw light upon the origins of what became early christianity. Stay with the historical Jesus assumption and one will live in history's shadow not it's reality.
