aa5874

The evidence for the non-existence of any entity will always be nothing.
All things deemed to be non-existent have no evidence whatsoever.
There is no good-evidence for the historical evidence for Jesus yet HJers continue to waste time to claim it is still possible after 1900 years.

One of the most significant historical marker for an historical Jesus would have been a specific date for his death.

If Jesus did exist all his followers, his disciples, his acquaitances, and even the skeptics in Judea would have remembered the exact date he died or was crucified, yet no writer of the gospels, no contemporary of the so-called Jesus, including Paul and Peter, have any specific date for the death of Jesus.

Based on gLuke, Jesus was supposed to be about thirty years old at around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, therefore Jesus would have died no later than 37 CE, and being about 39 years of age.
The supposed Jesus would have died very early in life, his followers, the disciples and even Paul should have remembered the date of his death. They all remembered he was crucified but they never said the year it happened.

They remembered he was resurrected but no date was given by the authors of the NT.

Can you imagine that all civil rights leaders could have written books about Martin Luther King Jr after he died and only mentioned that he was shot and never bothered to give the exact date of his death at all?

Suetonis wrote, early in the 2nd century, the "The Twelve Caesars" and the date of death or age for every twelve Caesars are recorded.

1.Julius Caeasr died when he was 56 years old.

2.Augustus died thirty-five days before his seventy-sixth birthday.

3.Tiberius died when he was seventy-eighth years old and the twenty-third of his reign.

4.Caligula lived until he was twenty-nine years old and ruled three years, ten months and eight days.


5.Claudius died when he was sixty-four years of age and the fourteenth of his reign.

6. Nero met his death when he was thirty-two years old.

7.Galba met his death in the seventy-third year of his age and the seventh month of his reign.

8. Otho stabbed himself when he was thirty-eighth years old and on the ninety-fifth day of his reign.

9. Vitellius met his death, along with his brother and his son, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.

10. Vespasian died in the arms of those who tried to help him, on the ninth day before the Kalends of July, at the age of sixty-nine years, seven months and seven days.

11. Titus died on the Ides of September, two years two months and twenty days after succeeding Vespasian, in the forty-second year of his age.

12. Domitian was slain on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of October in the forty-fifth year of his age and the fifteenth of his reign.

No contemporary of the supposed Jesus gave the exact date of the death of Jesus as found in the NT.
The author called Mathew wrote about a holy ghost conception, transfiguration, resurrection but forgot the exact date of the death of Jesus.
All the other writers including the one called Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude and Paul did not remember or never wrote the most significant date, the date of the death of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is preposterous. The most significant historical marker, the date of his death, was of no interest to those who wrote his biography, but they claimed he resurrected. And ascended through the clouds and they have witnesses.

spamandham

Finally, something interesting.

Although I might not expect them to know the exact date of his death (calendars as we know them didn't exist), I *would* expect them to know at least the year, as even gentiles would have been familiar with that. "...and in the 19th year of Tiberius, Jesus was crucified by Pilate under trumped up charges of treason..."...or something like that.

Instead, the crucifixion is set a symbolic 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple. This is unlikely if the crucifixion were a historical event. So that's two strikes against a historical crucifixion. Supposedly, Jack Finegan has argued that the cross was a messianic symbol found in Hebrew manuscripts prior to the purported crucifixion. I have not read this myself, but Stark referred to it (The Archeology of the New Testament, 1992, p 348). If true, I think this makes as strong a case as we can reasonably expect that the crucifixion is symbolic and not a historical account. I don't think it would even be that hard to figure out the symbolism if we can just divorce ourselves from the notion that it's historical.

....and if the crucfixion was not historical, then who is the historical Jesus? Well, here's where your methods and mine converge...there was no historical Jesus...or at least no-one we would immediately recognize as such.

aa5874

But, it is just incredible that you would not expect them to know the exact date when all that is missing from the date of death of Jesus is the year of the reign of Tiberius or the governorship of Pilate

That is all that is missing.

The Feast of the unleavened bread, the Passover, begins on the 15th of Nissan every year.

spamandham

I'm not sure why you find this incredible. I do not take a binary perspective of it's either all true or all false. Clearly, some of it is false. The question is how much. Even if it's 'fiction', as you say, it may still contain some real history.

For example, Pilate is a real historical figure, and he really was Prefect during the general time period represented in the gospels. Even 'fiction' may contain useful history.

GakuseiDon

Out of interest: If the year of crucifixion wasn't given, then how do you know that the crucifixion was set 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple?

spamandham

Heh, I don't of course. The 40 year idea is based on tradition. But the tradition developed later. What do you suppose they based it on?

GakuseiDon

When was the tradition first recorded? I don't know too much about it, I'm afraid.

spamandham

Going from recollection, I think Ireneus was the first to record this tradition. So if my jumbled memories prove correct, the tradition is no later than 2nd century in origin.


(Ireneus is I think the first to record that *others* were insisting Jesus was 30 at the time of his crucifixion)

andrewcriddle

Irenaeus' speculations about the age of Jesus at death don't really seem explicitly related to the length of time between the death of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem.

There is a clear claim in Arethas who speaking about the book of Revelation says but this is very late (after 500 CE).

Are there earlier writers who made an explicit point of a 40 year period between crucifixion and fall of Jerusalem ?

Andrew Criddle

ETA

Eusebius in Church History book 3 says This is earlier than Arethas but still a bit late.


ETA

Clement of Alexandria in Stromateis book 1 has rounding the period off to produce a significant number is probably post-Clementine maybe starting with Origen.

bacht

There's also Luke's framing of the Christian story spanning 70 years from the death of Herod to the end of Paul's career in the early '60s. Is this just a coincidence?