A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:15 am

Three gospel’s place the beheading of John the Baptist prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. Gospel crucifixion somewhere between 29 – 33 c.e. consensus dating. Josephus' Antiquities places the execution of its John the baptizer figure after the crucifixion of Jesus. i.e. Josephus' Antiquities places its Jesus crucifixion story in the context of 19 c.e. and the execution of its John the baptizer figure around 35/36 c.e.

Various attempts to harmonize this discrepancy have been attempted: Move the gospel Jesus crucifixion to 36 c.e. Move the Josephan John the baptizer figure to somewhere within the consensus gospel dating - 29 – 33 c.e. This move having to deal with Aretas waiting some 7 years before taking revenge on Herod (Antipas) for the divorce of his daughter. Josephus was having a ‘flashback’ moment….The TF is a forgery but in the wrong time context....

A new approach has now been suggested by Tamás Visi:

The Chronology of John the Baptist and the
Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth: A New Approach


Tamás Visi

The consensus of most of the present-day historians is that Jesus was
crucified around the year 30 CE, perhaps a year earlier or a few years later, but
in any case not after 33 CE. A minority of scholars have challenged the
consensus. They argue that the execution of John the Baptist could not take
place earlier than 35 CE, and for that reason Jesus must have been crucified at
the Passover of 36 CE; the last Passover which Pontius Pilate could spend in
Jerusalem as Roman governor. The present paper will argue that both parties
have strong and convincing arguments: it is indeed not very likely that Jesus
was crucified later than 33 CE, and it is nearly certain that John the Baptist
was not executed earlier than 35 CE. So how to solve this chronological
conundrum?

The plain solution is accepting both dates and abandoning the idea that
John the Baptist was executed earlier than Jesus. The rules of logic dictate
that at least one of the following three propositions must be false: (1) Jesus
was crucified in ca. 29–33 CE. (2) John was decapitated in ca. 35–36 CE. (3)
John died earlier than Jesus. This paper will argue that the last statement is
the weakest of the three, because it is much less supported by primary
historical evidence than the first two, and for that reason it should be
considered false. In other words, we must conclude that John was probably
executed after Jesus’ death.
----------------------
Conclusion

As has been stated at the beginning of this paper, at least one of the following
three propositions must be false:

1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE.
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE.
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus.

This paper has argued that while (1) and (2) are both supported by strong
historical evidence (see sections 1 and 2 above), the evidence for (3) is weak.
In particular, the Gospel of John does not state that the Baptist died earlier
than Jesus, and there are further reasons to believe that this idea is a specific
theological construction of the synoptic gospels (see 3.4. and 3.6 above).
Moreover, since first-century Jewish society at large had difficulties in
remembering dates of historical events (see 3.2), it is possible that neither the
exact date nor the chronological sequence of the two executions had been
remembered by the time the first extant gospels were written (see 3.3).

Therefore, the synoptic gospels’ claim that John the Baptist died earlier than
Jesus should be considered weak evidence (cf. 3.5).

Seeing that (1) and (2) are supported by strong evidence, whereas (3) is
supported by weak evidence, the idea that (1) and (2) should be considered
true, whereas (3) is false, recommends itself. For these reasons a secular
historian cannot but conclude that John the Baptist was executed after Jesus
was crucified.

https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Revi ... Approach


Did the gospel writers, writing after Antiquities, knowingly reverse the Josephan Antiquities order i.e. first Jesus then John, to first John then Jesus, for theological reasons. Did the Antiquities writer, writing after the gospel story, knowingly put aside the gospel’s theological story and simply reference a historical event. Whether one is on the historical or the ahistorists side of the Jesus and John the Baptist argument the ‘who done it’ is an intriguing question.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7891
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:06 am

maryhelena wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:15 am
Three gospel’s place the beheading of John the Baptist prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. Gospel crucifixion somewhere between 29 – 33 c.e. consensus dating. Josephus' Antiquities places the execution of its John the baptizer figure after the crucifixion of Jesus. i.e. Josephus' Antiquities places its Jesus crucifixion story in the context of 19 c.e. and the execution of its John the baptizer figure around 35/36 c.e.

Various attempts to harmonize this discrepancy have been attempted: Move the gospel Jesus crucifixion to 36 c.e. Move the Josephan John the baptizer figure to somewhere within the consensus gospel dating - 29 – 33 c.e. This move having to deal with Aretas waiting some 7 years before taking revenge on Herod (Antipas) for the divorce of his daughter. Josephus was having a ‘flashback’ moment….The TF is a forgery but in the wrong time context....

A new approach has now been suggested by Tamás Visi:

.... As has been stated at the beginning of this paper, at least one of the following
three propositions must be false:

1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE.
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE.
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus.

This paper has argued that while (1) and (2) are both supported by strong
historical evidence (see sections 1 and 2 above), the evidence for (3) is weak. ....

https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Revi ... Approach

Did the gospel writers, writing after Antiquities, knowingly reverse the Josephan Antiquities order i.e. first Jesus then John, to first John then Jesus, for theological reasons. Did the Antiquities writer, writing after the gospel story, knowingly put aside the gospel’s theological story and simply reference a historical event. Whether one is on the historical or the ahistorists side of the Jesus and John the Baptist argument the ‘who done it’ is an intriguing question.
I once suggested, taking my cue from Robert M. Price, that #3 is the weak link, as well. The suggestion was that John the Baptist was one of the figures proposed as having actually been the earthly Jesus, before the name change, who was currently "in heaven," and this equation of (past earthly) John to (presently heavenly) Jesus is what led to statements that "Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead." Once things from Jesus' present had been pushed back into his lifetime in order to fill out his earthly story, however — in a move which was replicated in many other instances, a well — such statements implied that John the Baptist had died before Jesus of Nazareth: they had once compared earthly John to heavenly Jesus, but now they were comparing earthy John to earthly Jesus, and the timeline got screwed up.

YMMV.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8029
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:30 am

It seems that Doudna thinks that there existed two John the Baptist:
  • John Hyrcanus II, referred by Josephus (and the synoptics based on Josephus)
  • a Christian John from Ephesus, referred by the Fourth Gospel
A concrete possibility, considered also by Stahl, is that the first "John the Baptist" was used to eclipse the disturbing legacy of the Christian "John the Baptist".

Not the contrary, as until now it has been always believed (a Christian John used to eclipse a not-Christian John).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:53 am

Josephus never wrote John the Baptist (JtB) was executed in 35-36.
There are many clues JtB was killed well before. And of course all 4 gospels indicate JtB was executed during Jesus' public life.
Full details are in http://historical-jesus.info/85.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:16 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:06 am
maryhelena wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:15 am
Three gospel’s place the beheading of John the Baptist prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. Gospel crucifixion somewhere between 29 – 33 c.e. consensus dating. Josephus' Antiquities places the execution of its John the baptizer figure after the crucifixion of Jesus. i.e. Josephus' Antiquities places its Jesus crucifixion story in the context of 19 c.e. and the execution of its John the baptizer figure around 35/36 c.e.

Various attempts to harmonize this discrepancy have been attempted: Move the gospel Jesus crucifixion to 36 c.e. Move the Josephan John the baptizer figure to somewhere within the consensus gospel dating - 29 – 33 c.e. This move having to deal with Aretas waiting some 7 years before taking revenge on Herod (Antipas) for the divorce of his daughter. Josephus was having a ‘flashback’ moment….The TF is a forgery but in the wrong time context....

A new approach has now been suggested by Tamás Visi:

.... As has been stated at the beginning of this paper, at least one of the following
three propositions must be false:

1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE.
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE.
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus.

This paper has argued that while (1) and (2) are both supported by strong
historical evidence (see sections 1 and 2 above), the evidence for (3) is weak. ....

https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Revi ... Approach

Did the gospel writers, writing after Antiquities, knowingly reverse the Josephan Antiquities order i.e. first Jesus then John, to first John then Jesus, for theological reasons. Did the Antiquities writer, writing after the gospel story, knowingly put aside the gospel’s theological story and simply reference a historical event. Whether one is on the historical or the ahistorists side of the Jesus and John the Baptist argument the ‘who done it’ is an intriguing question.
I once suggested, taking my cue from Robert M. Price, that #3 is the weak link, as well. The suggestion was that John the Baptist was one of the figures proposed as having actually been the earthly Jesus, before the name change, who was currently "in heaven," and this equation of (past earthly) John to (presently heavenly) Jesus is what led to statements that "Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead." Once things from Jesus' present had been pushed back into his lifetime in order to fill out his earthly story, however — in a move which was replicated in many other instances, a well — such statements implied that John the Baptist had died before Jesus of Nazareth: they had once compared earthly John to heavenly Jesus, but now they were comparing earthy John to earthly Jesus, and the timeline got screwed up.

YMMV.
I agree, the weak link is #3. Perhaps that's to be expected when theology hits it's head against the brick wall of history. In other words; we are dealing with what looks like a historical account in Josephus with a pretty obvious theological account in the gospels. The gospels have JC resurrected - therefore - he lives on, albeit in heaven - and JtB stays in his earthly grave to await some judgement day. Something like that...... No point having JtB sticking around to later have his head chopped off...the deal has been done, the sacrifice made, the ransom offered.

However, on a JC historical basis, such a theological scenario hits problems. Josephus has mudded the waters with his own Jesus and JtB accounts. Historicists turning to Josephus have to make two major rejections. #1 they have to reject the 19 c.e. context in which Josephus places his Jesus story. #2 They have to reject his dating for his John the baptizer figure. Thus rejecting the Antiquities time frame. Whether or not Josephus is writing history or allegory it's the dating he gives these two stories that is important. Bottom line is that within Antiquities the killing of JtB is placed after it's Jesus crucifixion story.

Obviously, when writing a story that centres around theology one can do whatever one fancies with reality. However, like the writings of Josephus, it's perhaps not so much the story the gospel writers are telling but where they places their story within a historical time frame. We might find that Josephus and the gospel writers are telling two versions of the same story. One version, the gospel version, is focused on theology. The Josephan Antiquities version focusing on a historical perspective. After all, both gospel writers and Josephus are ultimately dealing with historical reality. Its how they interpreted that historical reality that produces their stories.

A point that is often side-lined is that Slavonic Josephus has it's John the baptizer figure active in the time of Archelaus (removed around 6 c.e.) Hence a JtB that would be very much older than the gospel figure of Jesus. The gospels do give a 6 month age gap between John and Jesus - but perhaps that is just part of the gospel theological perspective that wants JtB killed prior to the Jesus crucifixion. A much older JtB and a younger JC - the young figure crucified prior to the killing of the older figure.

Interestingly, the Infancy gospel of James indicates that both John and Jesus were destined to be Kings of Israel. Logically, not at the same time - indicating a bigger age gap than the gospel 6 months. If these accounts have any relevance to the JtB and Jesus stories then perhaps it's time to pick up a history book...
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:27 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:30 am
It seems that Doudna thinks that there existed two John the Baptist:
  • John Hyrcanus II, referred by Josephus (and the synoptics based on Josephus)
Greg Doudna is finding some historical relevance in the Josephan JtB story.
The Gospel writers have focused on resurrection theology with their John and Jesus story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:47 pm

to maryhelena,
You wrote:
Josephus' Antiquities places its Jesus' crucifixion story in the context of 19 c.e.
Where did you get 19 c.e.?

to all,
BTW, according to my study, I put John the Baptist's arrest in 27 CE, early summer, after a public life lasting no more than 4 months.
I put Jesus' crucifixion in 28 CE, around Passover, after a public life lasting about 8 months and starting right after JtB's arrest.
And of course, JtB's execution occurring during Jesus' public life, likely in the 2nd part of 27 CE.

For the ones interested in in-depth studies which deal with 27-28 CE (among other juicy items), see http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html, http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html

And how all of that fits into the historical immediate context, see, "the historical Jesus, in a few words" http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:10 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:47 pm
to maryhelena,
You wrote:
Josephus' Antiquities places its Jesus' crucifixion story in the context of 19 c.e.
Where did you get 19 c.e.?
Josephus Antiquities book 18 ch. 3.

The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate, New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office. Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BCE - 135 CE. The Numismatic Circular, pp. 1-7. Kenneth Lönnqvist.

Whatever the reasons for the Emperor for depositing governors
in the provinces were in the Tiberian period, it emerges that an
extension of Pilate’s chronology from 26-36 A.D. to 17/18-
36/37 A.D. mentioned below, is very much in line with the
records of the administrative history of the early Principate.

https://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Ch ... _Lönnqvist

Jews expelled from Rome the year Germanicus died i.e. 19 c.e.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D85
to all,
BTW, according to my study, I put John the Baptist's arrest in 27 CE, early summer, after a public life lasting no more than 4 months.
I put Jesus' crucifixion in 28 CE, around Passover, after a public life lasting about 8 months and starting right after JtB's arrest.
And of course, JtB's execution occurring during Jesus' public life, likely in the 2nd part of 27 CE.

For the ones interested in in-depth studies which deal with 27-28 CE (among other juicy items), see http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html, http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html

And how all of that fits into the historical immediate context, see, "the historical Jesus, in a few words" http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard
For an in-depth argument for reasons for doubting the historicity of Jesus see Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt


Image

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Historicity-Je ... 169&sr=8-1
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:43 pm

Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=797
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:45 am

to maryhelena,
Jews expelled from Rome the year Germanicus died i.e. 19 c.e.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D85
I still do not see the connection between the event of 19 c.e. and Pilate's ruling over Judah as early as 17/18 c.e.
For an in-depth argument for reasons for doubting the historicity of Jesus see Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
I have the book, I read it multiple times. It is trash, all over. How could people believe in its veracity: that's beyond my comprehension.
From one of my reader:
"Carrier, like all mythicists in my humble opinion, really finagles a lot ridiculous things to get to his point. To me it's mind boggling how he could have success with his theories. Not to mention, I've seen his comments to you on some of his articles, and he is rude and an egomaniac."

I did criticize many important items from Carrier's book and Carrier's schemes and even debated with Carrier on his own blog. See what I got on Carrier here http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html (then "find" on: Carrier).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply