On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14944
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by Secret Alias »

https://books.google.com/books?id=3D9KA ... 22&f=false

It is not my only reason to cite this to further 'mythicism' but clearly one implication of the evidence is that the 'historical reality' of Jesus Christ isn't as firm as people pretend if - as the author clearly shows - the earliest strata of data points to great variation in his dating. Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Alexander all get roped into this 'apostolic tradition' which seems older and well established that our received tradition which lacks the historical foundation.
lsayre
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by lsayre »

I find it plausible that a generally recognizable form of Christianity emerged soon after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but this would establish the terminus ad quem. I have no idea as to the terminus post quem, but I suspect the religion which evolved to become Christianity may have been radically different at that juncture.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14944
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by Secret Alias »

Papias would argue against that I think. He lived before Bar Kochba and Marcion too. They say such wildly different things I don't know how this could be if Christianity itself only sprouted up when they were old men.

And for all the crackpot theorists, how do you explain this? Just read the article in full. For conspiracy theorists if Christianity was created or manufactured at a much later date you wouldn't find remnants of this system at the core of the earliest traditions. In fact I'd argue that instead of having a sudden 'invention' of a Jesus religion at a later date what the evidence suggests is several contradictory 'systems' AT A MUCH EARLIER DATE than our current 'surviving evidence' supports. So on the one hand you have the 'study of the historical Jesus' pretending that the surviving evidence of the four gospels, the Church Fathers etc supporting a 'firm historical Jesus' who was born at "0 CE" and died around 30 CE - this is bullshit. On the other hand you have those who want to negate the testimony of the Church Fathers who are somehow the product of a 'conspiracy' - this is also bullshit.

The reality is that the gospels are a late second century 'manufacture' to square contradictory traditions in the way the Mishnah (a contemporary Jewish document) tried to square and align contradictory halakhah. The Church Fathers ultimately help question not strengthen the historical Jesus. I am not saying that they 'prove' or 'agree' that Jesus didn't exist. But THAT HE EXISTED or THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVES HE LIVED AT A CERTAIN TIME isn't as certain we pretend it was/is.
lsayre
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by lsayre »

Whomever has come down to us as 'Paul' may be much earlier, but I don't see him as ever conceiving of a Christ called Jesus. Thus the earliest Paul would be hopelessly lost and unrecognizable to or by us. He may even have envisioned himself as a Christ figure.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14944
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by Secret Alias »

Well as far as I can see there seems to be a chain of thought which connects Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and was sitting on the bookshelf in the library of Alexander in Jerusalem.

Irenaeus however also seemed to acknowledge the Justin-Marcionite 'Man' figure with a special understanding of Man going into the womb of Mary in order to become a 'son of Man' according to the flesh and this became the battle cry against the heretics that they advocated for a man who wasn't of true flesh.

How did Irenaeus adhere and use traditions but only in part? How did he pick and choose from these traditions ("I accept this but not this")? I don't really get it.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On Papias Holding that "the birth of Christ is placed in A.D. 9 , His baptism in 46 , His death in 58"

Post by andrewcriddle »

There was an earlier thread about this. viewtopic.php?t=2103 See chapman a
chapman b argues that these odd dates were made by Hippolytus in his youth, with the help of the imperial chronology of Tertullian, and that they were based on no ancient tradition.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply