'When Did Jesus Live?'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
lclapshaw
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by lclapshaw »

John T wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:54 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:49 pm
When did Jesus live ? Its really a nonsense question is it not? Historical evidence that Jesus existed needs to be provided (Jesus understood as some version or variation of the gospel Jesus) then, and only then, can one attempt to investigate a time frame for his life. Methinks Jesus historicists are living in a bubble of their own illusions. Holding on to the historical Jesus illusion stifles research into what became early christianity.
Translation: Fellow atheists, ah um, I mean mythicists, don't you understand? if you say Jesus lived, our whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Get with the program! Now repeat after me; "Those who believe Jesus was real are delusional." Got it? Good!
Wow! You are an idiot!
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2373
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by maryhelena »

lclapshaw wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 3:31 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:49 pm
lclapshaw wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 12:42 pm
maryhelena wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:05 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:06 pm More generally, what are the theories about when Jesus lived and/or died, and who (if anyone) was responsible for his death? (For the sake of the exercise, I mean a life and death on earth)

GA Wells has Paul's Jesus dying in the remote past, though not identifying who was responsible IIRC.

Maryhelena has a date around 37BCE, when Antigonus II Mattathias was bound to a cross and scourged by Mark Anthony.
I don't hold the position that Antigonus II Mattathias was the gospel Jesus. My position is that this historical figure is the historical basis upon which the gospel writers drew for their Jesus crucifixion story i.e. a King of the Jews executed via a Roman agent. (gospel Jesus being a composite literary figure)
:cheers:
:)

When did Jesus live ? Its really a nonsense question is it not? Historical evidence that Jesus existed needs to be provided (Jesus understood as some version or variation of the gospel Jesus) then, and only then, can one attempt to investigate a time frame for his life. Methinks Jesus historicists are living in a bubble of their own illusions. Holding on to the historical Jesus illusion stifles research into what became early christianity.

Letting go of a historical Jesus frees one to consider all relevant Jesus stories - including the Toledot Yeshu and Alexander Jannaeus story. A composite Jesus figure, a symbolic Jesus, allows input from various sources. Various sources that indicate that the gospel Jesus story was never static, that it was a moving story. As time moves along, as history happens, the Jesus story developed.

I've proposed that the gospel crucifixion element of the Jesus story is a reference, a reflection, of the Roman execution of the last king and high priest of the Jews. Antigonus. It has been argued that Antigonus was simply beheaded and that Cassius Dio is wrong about him being hung up on a stake/cross/pole. Josephus has a story about a man taken down alive from a cross. Perhaps Antigonus was taken down alive and then beheaded. That Cassius Dio mentions Antigonus being hung up suggests (if he had no historical source) that he make a connection to the gospel crucifixion story about a king of the Jews being crucified involving a Roman agent.

Does this identification of a potential source for the gospel crucifixion story further research ? It can do - it can lead right back to the Toledot Yeshu and Alexander Jannaeus story: Antigonus was executed/crucified in 37 b.c. Josephus gives no age for Antigonus at his death. Alexander Jannaeus death, re Wikipedia, is around 76 b.c. One version of the Toledot Yeshu gives Yeshu a birth date of around 90 b.c. Working from either dating - Antigonus most probably was born in the time of his grandfather, Alexander Jannaeus.

The death of Yeshu is given as being in the time of Queen Helene. That was not the name of the wife of Alexander Jannaeus. A number of names have been suggested for Queen Helene. My own suggestion is that it's a reference to Queen Cleopatra Selene II (40 - 5 b.c. - year of her death is debated....) The connection of Cleopatra Selene to the Roman execution of Antigonus - she was the daughter of his executioner, Marc Antony. (and Cleopatra)

I'll repeat - gospel Jesus is a composite figure, a symbol that reflects Hasmonean history. Within that composite gospel Jesus figure, the Roman crucifixion/execution of the last Hasmonean King and High Priest is being reflected. Yeshu of the Toledot Yeshu is fiction, gospel Jesus is fiction. They are literary creations designed to reflect Hasmonean history. They are part of the political allegorical nature of the gospel story. The linkage is there - the life story of Antigonus can run back to the time of Alexander Jannaeus. 70 years after the Roman execution/crucifixion of Antigonus in 37 b.c. the gospel story places it's Jesus story in the time of Pilate.

Why bother with Hasmonean history if all the NT is about is Paul's spiritual/cosmic crucifixion philosophy ? Because history matters. It matters if we want to understand what led to the religious/cultural world we inherited and continue to advocate.
Amen sister! :cheers: I agree with everything you have written above. And even if Paul had a spiritual entity in mind we still have the obvious fictional character of the Gospel stories, the authors of which, were probably trying to figure out what Paul was on about and using Josephus as a guide created what they thought sounded good.
As Wells once said of Doherty's position - its not all mythical. Pauline philosophical ideas might well be the cherry on the cake..... but one first needs to bake the cake before one reaches for the cherry. Which basically means there is no choice between terra firma, history, and our intellectual/philosophical ability to understand our world. A position well understood by NT writers with their two crucifixion stories.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1220
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by John T »

lclapshaw wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:01 pm
John T wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:54 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:49 pm
When did Jesus live ? Its really a nonsense question is it not? Historical evidence that Jesus existed needs to be provided (Jesus understood as some version or variation of the gospel Jesus) then, and only then, can one attempt to investigate a time frame for his life. Methinks Jesus historicists are living in a bubble of their own illusions. Holding on to the historical Jesus illusion stifles research into what became early christianity.
Translation: Fellow atheists, ah um, I mean mythicists, don't you understand? if you say Jesus lived, our whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Get with the program! Now repeat after me; "Those who believe Jesus was real are delusional." Got it? Good!
Wow! You are an idiot!
What, should I have also thrown in fellow gnostics?
Just so you know, the esteemed Dr. Ehrman, the agnostic that he is, still believes that Jesus actually lived. He even wrote a book about it titled: Did Jesus Exist? in which he also exposes the true agenda of the mythicists.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
ABuddhist
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:59 am
lclapshaw wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:01 pm
John T wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:54 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:49 pm
When did Jesus live ? Its really a nonsense question is it not? Historical evidence that Jesus existed needs to be provided (Jesus understood as some version or variation of the gospel Jesus) then, and only then, can one attempt to investigate a time frame for his life. Methinks Jesus historicists are living in a bubble of their own illusions. Holding on to the historical Jesus illusion stifles research into what became early christianity.
Translation: Fellow atheists, ah um, I mean mythicists, don't you understand? if you say Jesus lived, our whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Get with the program! Now repeat after me; "Those who believe Jesus was real are delusional." Got it? Good!
Wow! You are an idiot!
What, should I have also thrown in fellow gnostics?
Just so you know, the esteemed Dr. Ehrman, the agnostic that he is, still believes that Jesus actually lived. He even wrote a book about it titled: Did Jesus Exist? in which he also exposes the true agenda of the mythicists.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
You keep insisting that we should trust that book even though I have revealed to you its inaccuracies and have provided proof to you that Christian mythicists exist.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by Sinouhe »

:goodmorning:
ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:59 am
John T wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:59 am
lclapshaw wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:01 pm
John T wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:54 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:49 pm
When did Jesus live ? Its really a nonsense question is it not? Historical evidence that Jesus existed needs to be provided (Jesus understood as some version or variation of the gospel Jesus) then, and only then, can one attempt to investigate a time frame for his life. Methinks Jesus historicists are living in a bubble of their own illusions. Holding on to the historical Jesus illusion stifles research into what became early christianity.
Translation: Fellow atheists, ah um, I mean mythicists, don't you understand? if you say Jesus lived, our whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Get with the program! Now repeat after me; "Those who believe Jesus was real are delusional." Got it? Good!
Wow! You are an idiot!
What, should I have also thrown in fellow gnostics?
Just so you know, the esteemed Dr. Ehrman, the agnostic that he is, still believes that Jesus actually lived. He even wrote a book about it titled: Did Jesus Exist? in which he also exposes the true agenda of the mythicists.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
You keep insisting that we should trust that book even though I have revealed to you its inaccuracies and have provided proof to you that Christian mythicists exist.
So his 2 references are « Did Jesus exist ? » and « The song of the Just and Michael ? » :lol:
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1220
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by John T »

Sinouhe wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:16 am
So his 2 references are « Did Jesus exist ? » and « The song of the Just and Michael ? » :lol:
If you take the time to actually read: Did Jesus Exist? you would realize Dr. Ehrman has a whole chapter titled: Non-Christian Sources for the Life of Jesus. pg. 35-68.

As far as your non sequitur regarding 4Q491, fr. II... Well, I sense you are still smarting over that and want another bite of the apple. If so, I would recommend you let it go and learn from your mistakes. Still, be as that may, I was referring to the calendars of the priestly courses as found in4Q320-30. I trust you already knew that, that is if you really are an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls as I hope you are. :cheers:
ABuddhist
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:46 am
Sinouhe wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:16 am
So his 2 references are « Did Jesus exist ? » and « The song of the Just and Michael ? » :lol:
If you take the time to actually read: Did Jesus Exist? you would realize Dr. Ehrman has a whole chapter titled: Non-Christian Sources for the Life of Jesus. pg. 35-68.
Such sources, though, are late (on the order of around 80 years) and, even when of unimpeachable authenticity (which is few), reveal nothing about Jesus which a writer could not have gotten by asking Christians or people who knew about Christianity. Nor are they detailed or probing accounts.

You may say that the Christians whom such authors relied upon were telling the truth as best as they could, and although I agree with you about that, such is in turn begging the question of how the Christians learned what they regarded as truth.
davidmartin
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by davidmartin »

Jesus existing doesn't stifle research into Christian origins. That argument is a blunt tool that makes the assumption a historical Jesus = Christian apologist narrative. It may not exclude Christian apology but it also doesn't limit the research to that in any way, what are people afraid of? You could propose the historical person was X or Y or Z and not have to throw out mythicist approaches either, because you could say there was much myth making built on top even to the extent of almost completely obscuring the historical person. Is this not good enough?

The Odes provides evidence of a radical Jewish messianic community exactly like what you would expect to find. The question whether the Odes assume a historical human is of great interest. Even if the Odes were shown to have a purely heavenly redeemer figure they still get you a step closer to the historical origins of the movement itself I think. Why they don't get much attention is rather perverted really since they check a lot of boxes
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:42 am Jesus existing doesn't stifle research into Christian origins. That argument is a blunt tool that makes the assumption a historical Jesus = Christian apologist narrative. It may not exclude Christian apology but it also doesn't limit the research to that in any way, what are people afraid of? You could propose the historical person was X or Y or Z and not have to throw out mythicist approaches either, because you could say there was much myth making built on top even to the extent of almost completely obscuring the historical person. Is this not good enough?

The Odes provides evidence of a radical Jewish messianic community exactly like what you would expect to find. The question whether the Odes assume a historical human is of great interest. Even if the Odes were shown to have a purely heavenly redeemer figure they still get you a step closer to the historical origins of the movement itself I think. Why they don't get much attention is rather perverted really since they check a lot of boxes
It is a dumb question really, because it assumes a certain Jesus without spelling it out exactly which one that would be - for obvious reasons. If that question were asked and an answer provided, then it would stifle research into CO

What use is it when we'd find the birth certificate, sealed and signed, of a historical Jesus, born around 0 CE, who was a 7-foot Chinese whose parents just recently migrated to Alexandria, for instance?
He'd be rejected of course - but on which basis? He might very well be the real deal

Asking the question is providing the answer without disclosing it.
"Will I find my perfect partner?" is an equally useless question

Most certainly no offense david, I think you'll take this as it's meant - not directed at you LOL
dbz
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: 'When Did Jesus Live?'

Post by dbz »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:59 am
John T wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:59 am
What, should I have also thrown in fellow gnostics?
Just so you know, the esteemed Dr. Ehrman, the agnostic that he is, still believes that Jesus actually lived. He even wrote a book about it titled: Did Jesus Exist? in which he also exposes the true agenda of the mythicists.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
You keep insisting that we should trust that book even though I have revealed to you its inaccuracies and have provided proof to you that Christian mythicists exist.
Also:
Focussing on the non-Christian sources that are available, from within around 100 years after Jesus’ death, Ehrman generally dismisses the few extant non-Christian and non-Jewish testimonies, that of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. [...] Ehrman quickly discards the disputed and irrelevant Talmudic references to Jesus, which he arguably should not have even mentioned [...] Ehrman also adds that “my case for the historicity of Jesus does not depend on the reliability of Josephus’ testimony”. . . . Ehrman has been very bold — though mostly fair — so far. He has effectively ruled out the sources that we objective and secular scholars might place more confidence in... [Lataster 2019, pp. 34, 36, 38. ISBN 978-9004397934.]
Post Reply