A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

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

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:52 am
It stands to reason that even if Jesus was killed by Jews that most of his followers, his supporters and he himself was Jewish
Therefore it's obvious that only a subset within the hierarchy of his society was responsible in that scenario
Thus it's utterly false and misleading to suggest he was killed by his own people and not a particular subset of them
All of this is totally obvious and transparent in all the sources available
So I don't understand anyone who says Jesus was killed by the Jews as if this is a rational argument
''a subset of Jews'' need to be named - otherwise your not saying anything of relevance to the gospel story. Some 'subset' of Jews tells us nothing about the gospel crucifixion story. That's OK if one is running with a historical Jesus - best to keep things very ambiguous, play safe so as not to thread on someone's toes. Name names and we might be able to throw some light on that gospel crucifixion story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

perseusomega9
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:04 am

yes, and as Mary points out it was likely the Herodian/establishment Jews, but our texts usually just say 'the Jews' and we have to read between the lines.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

perseusomega9
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:04 am

I see mary crossposted a similar thought
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by davidmartin » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:19 am

''a subset of Jews''[/b] need to be named - otherwise your not saying anything of relevance to the gospel story. Some 'subset' of Jews tells us nothing about the gospel crucifixion story. That's OK if one is running with a historical Jesus - best to keep things very ambiguous, play safe so as not to thread on someone's toes. Name names and we might be able to throw some light on that gospel crucifixion story.
There's no need to try to play safe and yes i'm openly advocating for a historical Jesus for sure
The particular subset i'm talking about is clearly identified in the gospel story, that is, the religious authorities
What I'm objecting to is anyone stating 'the Jews killed Jesus', this is as nonsensical as saying 'the Romans killed Jesus'
What, so some poor schmuck living in a hovel who never heard of Jesus is responsible because his leaders made some judgement?
No, it's politics. Attempting to pin the blame on any people is non-nonsensical unless the gospel story stated that their is something in the DNA of a certain tribe or people that from birth is opposed to Jesus which is not the case if any credence is given to the story of Jesus in the gospels

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

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:37 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:19 am
''a subset of Jews''[/b] need to be named - otherwise your not saying anything of relevance to the gospel story. Some 'subset' of Jews tells us nothing about the gospel crucifixion story. That's OK if one is running with a historical Jesus - best to keep things very ambiguous, play safe so as not to thread on someone's toes. Name names and we might be able to throw some light on that gospel crucifixion story.
There's no need to try to play safe and yes i'm openly advocating for a historical Jesus for sure
The particular subset i'm talking about is clearly identified in the gospel story, that is, the religious authorities
What I'm objecting to is anyone stating 'the Jews killed Jesus', this is as nonsensical as saying 'the Romans killed Jesus'
What, so some poor schmuck living in a hovel who never heard of Jesus is responsible because his leaders made some judgement?
No, it's politics. Attempting to pin the blame on any people is non-nonsensical unless the gospel story stated that their is something in the DNA of a certain tribe or people that from birth is opposed to Jesus which is not the case if any credence is given to the story of Jesus in the gospels
Were the religious authorities Jewish? And if so - are you then putting blood guilt upon the Jewish religious authorities for wanting Jesus crucified? Methinks you've got yourself in a puddle here.

Or are you really trying to suggest that no one at all was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus in the gospel 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 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:38 am

1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE. = according to gLuke and its 15th year of Tiberius story.
Let's not forget about the 11 years of Gratus according to Josephus Ant. XVIII, 2, 2. That a Christian (like Eusebius) extended these 11 years is totally unproven: there is no evidence for that.
Also, in Ant. XVIII, 4, 2 Vitellius, the elder (becoming president of Syria in 35 CE) sent Pilate to Rome (& never returned to Judea), after a ten years tenure. So Pilate started as governor of Judea not before 25 CE.
And before Pilate reached Rome, Tiberius died (37 CE), That would put Pilate's tenure in Judea starting in 26/27 CE.
2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea replacing Pilate), and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead [in 37 CE].
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE. = according to Antiquities book 18 ch.5
Josephus never wrote JtB died then. People can hold a grudge for many years against someone who did evil deeds in the past. And Aretas could not attack Antipas when the later was the darling of Tiberius. But one event (in 36-37 CE) made Vitellius, president of Syria (also commander of the roman army in the Levant) very much angry against Antipas (Ant. XVIII, 4, 5). And with old Tiberius' desire for peace (Ant. XVIII, 4, 4-5), Aretas thought the time had come to go to war against Antipas. See for details in http://historical-jesus.info/85.html
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus = Antiquities book 18 ch.3. and 18 ch. 5 do not support the gospel story that JtB died prior to Jesus.
I already explained about Ant. XVIII, 5, 2 and, in an earliest post), Ant. XVIII, 5, 2. None of the 2 passages offers evidence for that claim.

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 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:56 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:38 am
1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE. = according to gLuke and its 15th year of Tiberius story.
Let's not forget about the 11 years of Gratus according to Josephus Ant. XVIII, 2, 2. That a Christian (like Eusebius) extended these 11 years is totally unproven: there is no evidence for that.
Also, in Ant. XVIII, 4, 2 Vitellius, the elder (becoming president of Syria in 35 CE) sent Pilate to Rome (& never returned to Judea), after a ten years tenure. So Pilate started as governor of Judea not before 25 CE.
And before Pilate reached Rome, Tiberius died (37 CE), That would put Pilate's tenure in Judea starting in 26/27 CE.
2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea replacing Pilate), and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead [in 37 CE].
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE. = according to Antiquities book 18 ch.5
Josephus never wrote JtB died then. People can hold a grudge for many years against someone who did evil deeds in the past. And Aretas could not attack Antipas when the later was the darling of Tiberius. But one event (in 36-37 CE) made Vitellius, president of Syria (also commander of the roman army in the Levant) very much angry against Antipas (Ant. XVIII, 4, 5). And with old Tiberius' desire for peace (Ant. XVIII, 4, 4-5), Aretas thought the time had come to go to war against Antipas. See for details in http://historical-jesus.info/85.html
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus = Antiquities book 18 ch.3. and 18 ch. 5 do not support the gospel story that JtB died prior to Jesus.
I already explained about Ant. XVIII, 5, 2 and, in an earliest post), Ant. XVIII, 5, 2. None of the 2 passages offers evidence for that claim.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard, I'm not going around in circles with you. For me, debating with a Jesus historicist is simply not a beneficial use of my time. Nothing you write in this post in any way challenges the position set out by Tamás Visi - that the Josephan JtB figure was executed after the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus figure.

The Chronology of John the Baptist and the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth: A New Approach
https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Rev ... _Approach
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 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:16 pm

Is the Josephan account of a Jesus crucified under Pilate in 19 c.e. a historical account or an interpretative account of Jewish history? Is the Josephan account of a John the baptizer figure executed around 36 c.e. a historical account or an interpretative account of Jewish history? In answering these two questions perhaps it's well to keep in mind the words of James McLaren:


It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67.

A 'constructed picture'. If that is the case with the writing of Josephus then unless his Jesus and John the baptizer figures can be independently verified as historical - then it's open season as to what Josephus has been doing with these two literary figures. If these literary figures are, as I would suggest, composite literary figures, they would provide an avenue, a method, whereby a writer of history could, as it were, cover a wide historical framework. A wide historical framework that includes a Roman crucifixion of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c. and the Herodian execution of a former King and High Priest, Hyrcanus II in 30 b.c.. Two historical, Hasmonean, figures around which Josephus has constructed a picture. The 'constructed picture' we are dealing with, Josephus' John the baptizer and his Jesus figure, needs to be unconstructed if movement towards understanding early christian origins can move forward.

(And yes, on a historical basis, the older man, Hyrcanus II, was executed after the crucifixion of the younger man, Antigonus......So, for that at least, Josephus has all his ducks in a row....... ;) .)
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 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:32 pm

to maryhelena,
For access to Visi's book, you have to pay, which I refuse to do.
So I'll comment on what you "published".
But I am very interested about knowing Visi's "strong historical evidence" for option (2). I never saw any shred of evidence supporting option (2). Prove me wrong.

Capitalization and bolding are mine.
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.
On the last paragraph, (3) is supported by the three synoptic gospels. The last sentence is wishful thinking.

I also notice the words MINORITY and PROBABLY and POSSIBLE and REASONS TO BELIEVE (about alleged theological constructions).

About "In particular, the Gospel of John does not state that the Baptist died earlier
than Jesus". Visi is rather unfair about he making an argument from silence from gJohn for his own benefit, but ignore the positive evidence from the 3 synoptic gospels (which Visi tried to cancel), which clearly indicate than JtB was executed before Jesus' crucifixion.

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

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 » Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:01 pm

Josephus' Ants XVIII, 5, 2:
Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.
Where does it say JtB was executed in 35/36 CE? I also notice the "now" which suggests the destruction of Antipas' army was in another time than the one of John's execution.

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

Post Reply