JoeWallack

JW:
You have no quality evidence that Jesus died c. 30 (no 1st or 2nd hand witness). You have the following serious chronological problems:

1) Paul is the earliest source and is not interested in HJ. That's a bad start.

2) Paul's only help in dating Jesus' supposed death is his "rulers of this age" comment. He never mentions Pilate.

3) "Mark" writes the original narrative and is known to have used Josephus as a source. Pilate is the most important governor in Josephus so that may have been "Mark's" source as it sure as hell was not Paul.

4) "MarK" follows his source Paul as to Jesus' origin. Nothing.

5) "Matthew" is dependent on "Mark" and adds a birth c. 4 bce.

6) "Luke" is dependent on "Mark" and adds a birth c. 6 ce probably with Josephus as a source. The birth difference between "Matthew" and "Luke" indicates that Christianity at this point had no access to historical witness and had no idea how old HJ was.

7) The birth narratives and "Luke's" "30" look like reactions to the Gnostics rather than historical facts.

8) Irenaeus,the discoverer of almost every important OCD historical assertian, claims that Jesus died under Claudias, a fact you seem blissfully unaware of, as was Ben before you. Claudius is after Pilate. I believe this is the same Irenaeus you are banking on with Polycarp.

9) Oh yeah, all of these authors here believe that god sacrificed himself to himself, thereby conquering death by dying in order to end an eternal Law.

So in summary you have no quality evidence for c. 30 and serious pressure on every dating Marker for HJ, Birth, 30, Death. And did I mention that the basic narrative is Fiction.



Joseph

Vinnie

When are you going to list the serious chronological problems? A dismissivie tone is not a chronological problem. There isn't a single point in your list that presents an actual chronological problem.

If you present one I will respond to it.

I dare say I could easily find over thirty chronological indicators for Jesus. all indicating early first century or providing upper and lower boundaries. I have a version with about 20 on my website already.

Vinine

JoeWallack

JW:
So you are putting us on (again). No need to also point out that there is no External evidence for "Mark" until c. 130:

When Was "Mark" Written Based On The External Evidence?

Note that the earliest source Paul has no chronological Markers. We don't get any until the 2nd century in the friend of a friend of a friend era. This isn't simply doubt as to chronology, it's doubt as to the existence. And if existence is in doubt than chronology must be.

All because Vinnie didn't know that Irenaeus said Jesus died under Claudius which would have been 50s.



Joseph

spamandham

The assumption of 75 is merely for the purpose of the probability exercise. IMHO, John never existed at all, and probably neither did Polycarp. IMHO, both men were inventions of the later church trying to demonstrate a direct succession of authority all the way from Jesus to themselves.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Asking what an 80 year old Apostle would be doing with a 15 year old is a very good question. It makes the tale even more unlikely.

However, the writer of Against Heresies explodes our possible scenario even more certainly, when he writes (3.3.4), "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna,"

We were assuming that one apostle had survived till age 80, but the statement here is clearly "apostles". So at least two apostles had to survive till 80. If believing that one apostle, born in the year 10 C.E. could survive to age 80, the idea that two of them could, certainly makes the scenario more than highly improbable.

Still worse these 80 year old Apostles had to be alive to appoint Polycarp Bishop. But did Polycarp really become the Bishop of Smyrna at age 15?

We know have to take into account that the Apostles made Polycarp into a Bishop. At what age was Polycarp when this happened? Let us say that he was made bishop at age 30. That would mean that in our scenario, he was born in 60 C.E. He visited Rome when he was 90 and was was martyred at 101. We are clearly in fantasy land at this point.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

To the uninitiated reader, this is false. Paul mentions Pilate in the Pastoral Epistles. But then again, it's argued that "Paul" didn't write the Pastorals and we have no witness to them before Irenaeus.

JoeWallack

JW:
Until who?



Joseph

aa5874

The Pauline writer MUST have had interest in the claim that the God/man Jesus was bertrayed, crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

And the Pauline writers were LATE addition to the Jesus stories. All the Pauline writers are after the writings of Justin Martyr.



In the writing called Against Heresies, there was no claim whatsoever that Jesus died under Claudius anywhere.

The writer claimed Jesus suffered under Pilate many times.

Against Heresies 2.32.4
Against Heresies 3.4.2 AH 3.12.3 AH 3.12.9 The writer called Irenaeus would make an absurd claim that Jesus was over fifty years old using the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, but he most likely did not know much about the governorship of Pilate.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Eusebius helps us out with the dating of Polycarp. He says that Polycarp became bishop at the same time that Everestus became Bishop in Rome, in the third year of the reign of Trajan (Church History: 3:33-36) which would be the year 100.

So, assuming the apostles were born in the year 10 and were 20 in the year 30 when they followed Jesus, we now have them alive in the year 100, being 90 years old and appointing Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. Assuming he was 30 when made Bishop, that would mean that he was born in 70 C.E. He would have been 80 years when he voyaged from Smyrna to Rome to meet Anicetus in 150.

Eusebius gives the date (Church History, 4:14-15) of Polycarp's martyrdom as 161 C.E. That would make him 91 years old (another fantastic story to rival anything in a Superman comic book -- a fire could not kill him and when he was pierced by a sword, his blood put out the fire.)

In the best case, we have two apostles living 90 years and a Bishop they appointed living 91 years (61 years serving as Bishop of Smyrna).

Does anyone wish to argue that this is plausible?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

GakuseiDon

Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?