spin

This is the editio princeps of C.H. Roberts. Since then a lot more of palaeographic evidence has been considered. Andreas Schmidt (1989) considering other manuscripts dated the tiny fragments toward the end of the 2nd c. (C.M. Tuckett cites Schmidt uncontrovertially, NTS 47 p.544.) Brent Nongbri (HTR 98, 2005, p.46) urged that such pinpoint accuracy as Roberts' date is overoptimistic and recommends widening the date range considerably towards the newer. He concludes "any serious consideration of the window for possible dates for P52 must include dates in the late second century and early third centuries."

la70119

No, but he was STILL TRIED FOR and CONVICTED OF a capital crime (Blasphemy) before the Sanhedrin.

Yet he was STILL SENTENCED to be CRUCIFIED with the charge, "THE KING OF THE JEWS."

Who ELSE proclaimed him "THE KING OF THE JEWS"?????

The Jewish masses who were his disciples, that's who. (gMark 11:1-11, gMatthew 21:1-11, gLuke 19:28-40, gJohn 12:12-19)

Who CONFESSED he was "THE KING OF THE JEWS"?????

gMark 15:1-2 NIV

Also gMatthew 27:1, gLuke 23:1-3, gJohn 18:28-39.

They did, at least in the Synoptics, and they STILL took him to Pilate.

gMark 14:53-65 NIV

Also gMatthew 26:57-68, gLuke 22:66-23:1. Note gJohn does NOT have this trial, just a questioning, so they could plausibly say to Pilate, You try to harmonise these accounts, and it EXPOSES the utter fictiveness of these goofy gospels.

la70119

Except in gLuke 23, Pilate permits them to put Jesus to death, and they go ahead and crucify him. When the Roman soldiers finally show up, all they do is mock him and offer him vinegar, because he's already hung up. (gLuke 23;36)

gLuke 23:23-26, 32-33

Not ONCE does gLuke say that Pilate delivered Jesus to Roman soldiers so that they, the soldiers, would crucify him. So by chasing the pronouns back to the antecedent you find that gLuke has the Jews crucifying Jesus! Just like in the Gospel of Peter and Justin Martyr's I Apology 35.

So why do we have gLuke and gJohn and try to pinpoint Jesus' crucifixion to 29 or 30 CE?

gLuke 3 has John the baptist beginning his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. According to gLuke, before John the Baptist was arrested, when all the people were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized too. Now we know from Josephus that when John became popular, he was arrested for political reasons. In the gospel fictions, he was arrested because John rebuked Herod the Tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other "evil things" he had done. Either way, it appears JtB's repentance campaign was short lived. And then gLuke gives Jesus a ministry of about a year: only one Passover is mentioned, and that at the end of his ministry.

gLuke tries, but doesn't quite succeed. But gJohn certainly does. he puts the cleansing of the temple at the first passover in Jesus' Ministry.

First passover: gJohn 2:13, 18-20, 23

The Temple that was under construction had its construction begun by Herod the Great in 20-19 BCE. You add 46 years, and you have 27 or 28 CE, given there is no Zero Year BCE-CE.

Second Passover: gJohn 6:4

Third Passover gJohn 11:55-56, 12;1, 12:12, 13:1, 18:28, 19:42,

Three Passovers, that equates to about 2 years. gJohn sets the Crucifiction in 29 or 30 CE.

And the author of the "Testimonium Flavianum" sets Jesus' Crucifixion during Pilate's reign, but inexplicably places it BEFORE Josephus' description of the events that led to the expulsion of the Jews by Tiberius in 19 CE! And Josephus places JtB long after the expulsion....

la70119

The later dates are good to know. It butresses us skeptics in our contention that Christianity is a SECOND century invention. Even with the earlier date, there still is zero evidence for any of the gospels, Paul's letters or any thing else in the New Testament existing prior to 70 CE. Except Church tradition and imagination.

spin

We both know that Luke is a secondary witness to the tradition.

Perhaps you could ask him. Using your type of arithmetic he also puts Jesus' birth circa 6CE.

Herod started to build the temple in 23-22BCE or earlier (AJ 15.380, note c, Loeb Josephus V.8, p.185). 46 years later is....

This in no way changes the relationship between the death of JtB and the outcome of the Antipas-Aretas war.

la70119

What tradition?

Yes, he screwed up there. 6 plus 30 yields 36, and Jesus would have been crucified in 37 CE when Pilate had already left for Rome after getting in trouble for slaughtering the Samaritan devotees of a false "Joshua" or "Moses" who went to Mt Gerizim to dig up some implements of Moses. (Ant. 18.4.1,2 = Ant. 18.85-89). NOT POSSIBLE for Jesus to be crucified by Pilate unless his ministry was a literal flash in the pan.

Loeb is going by a reign beginning in 40 CE. The Wikipedia link goes by the commonly accepted date of 37 CE when Mark Anthony & Herod the Great finally captured Jerusalem.

23-22 BCE plus 46 years yields 24 or 25 CE which is EARLIER. Which probably means the Jews at the time WERE trying capital cases, and forwarding the convicted to the prefect for sentencing. This seems to be the modus operandi for the scenario in the "TF".

And 24 + 2 = 26, and 25 + 2 = 27. Just as I said, the Sanhedrin could be trying cases and forwarding the convicted to the prefect for sentencing.

I wasn't expecting it to.

spin

The christian literary tradition.

That's when Herod went by the start of his reign.

Far too early or far too late. It doesn't matter. It's still off. This sort of arithmetic approach is like that of the fundamentalist.

Posting useless stuff doesn't get us anywhere.

Duvduv

So the Jews are described in GJohn as wanting the Romans under Pilate to carry out the execution that the Sanhedrin was not allowed to perform. This sounds like an unimportant detail in the context of the story in GJohn. The other gospels get by with the Jews advocating the execution of Jesus WITHOUT any mention of the powers of the Sanhedrin. It is interesting that the text that is the furthest from Judaism should introduce this particular detail in relation to the removal of the power of capital punishment from the Sanhedrin.

la70119

In other words, gMark and gMatthew. Possibly gThomas, gPeter / Memoirs of Peter, gHebrews, and the Memoirs of the Apostles. And that's what we know about, that I can think of.

Apart from those and Other Known Writings and Midrash from the LXX Old Testament, we have Unknown And Lost Writings and Chinese Whispers.

40 BCE? Because there are scholars who are starting to notice that the long-term consensus of the de jure beginning in 40 BCE / de facto beginning in 37 BCE is erroneous. Here, I'll cite one:

Andrew E. Steinmann, "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29

So to date the fictitious events per gJohn 2:

First passover: -21 + 46 + 1 = 26 OR -20 + 46 + 1 = 27
Third passover: 26 + 2 = 28 OR 27 + 2 = 29

So we're at least 40 years before the destruction of the Temple for the fictitious event that changed history. In the clear of Jewish tradition for the Sanhedrin to try capital cases, even if they could not sentence the convicted (that was the prefect's job).

:redface: Well I should've said consistently that 30 CE was about the latest possible date to insert this fiction, despite gLuke's obvious monkey wrenches. Otherwise, we can't set a date, period, for gMark and gMatthew give us nothing to go by, except the absurd kangaroo court trial that was conducted contrary to the Jewish oral law.

But if one goes by the Archaeological Evidence that has recently indicated that the quarrying for the temple started about 19 BCE, you add 46 and 2 and you'll be at about 30 CE.

Let me put it like this then: the community of scholars, regardless of whether they place the death of John the Baptist as late as 35 CE or as early as 28 CE, acknowledge that Josephus relates Herod Antipas' defeat in the war he started with his execution of JtB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronol...to_the_Baptist

You had said before:

Except none of the gospels place his death at the start of the war. In fact, there is no mention of any war in the gospels except in the parables and the baby Apocalypses and other predictions: that is, no mention of any war as a contemporary or imminent event.

The only one that gets it close is gLuke, and he has Jesus baptized and/or starting his ministry at about the start of the war, given a 6 CE birthdate under Quirinus, President of Roman Syria, and an eight-year ministry for JtB who gets to be popular with the masses without attracting the attention of Herod Antipas. :constern02: Remember, Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry are about forty to fifty days apart so he can fast in the desert for the requisite forty days and the Devil can have a cameo role in tempting him (gLuke 4).

la70119

Yes, and it's strange to me, too. Worse, the other gospels have the Sanhedrin run a trial at night, in one session, with absolutely zero regard for the Jewish legal requirements that governed court proceedings for capital cases.

It's almost as if the Synoptic writers said, "Hey, let's depict the Jews as totally bolloxing their own trial out of rage and hatred against our hero, so they could demand Pilate to have him hanged alive in the typical Roman fashion, and make them out to be total perverts and barbarians in the process."