maryhelena

Interesting question re the date for the death of John the Baptist.....It probably all depends on the date for the marriage of Herodias to Herod - which is given in the quote below (Wikipedia) as 36 CE - but no reference to back this up. It could of course be argued that John the Baptist died at the usual time prior to the death of the gospel Jesus (somewhere between 29 CE and 33 CE) and that Aretas IV simply took about 6 or 7 years before he got around to avenging Herod for divorcing his daughter........

Wikipedia on Aretas IV.

I don't think this does much regarding the gospel dating of the crucifixion - it does though raise questions re the alleged role in that storyline re John the Baptist and the take over of his followers by Jesus of Nazareth.

During the 100 years between the battles of the two Aretas' there was two prominent beheadings. Both Hasmoneans. Alexander in 49 BC and Antigonus in 37 BC. (after the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great, Antigonus executed by the Romans in Antioch).

Alexander captured by Pompey in 63 BC - escaped and finally re-arrested by order of Pompey in 49 BC and beheaded in Antioch.

bacht

Yes, once the historical integrity of the NT is challenged it does open up some questions that believers would rather ignore, one being whether there was ever a real person Saul/Paul, and whether this person wrote anything in the canon.

These discussions go on and on because there is no evidence outside the Christian corpus to conclusively corroborate the historical data. All the familiar names (Jesus, John the Baptist, James, Peter, Paul et al) are just that, names in a collection of stories. Their existence in the real world is not proven in any scientific sense. Thus there is room to postulate Christian origins any time from Daniel to Constantine.

maryhelena

I’ll admit to a bit of frustration re mythicist not challenging the Saul/Paul storyline....

While I agree re all the NT figures being names in the storyline - I don’t think we can write off the NT date stamp as having no relevance. Clearly the intent was to have Jesus of Nazareth fulfil OT prophecy - hence the specified date stamp could not have been arbitrarily chosen.

Perhaps, in considering the beginnings of Christianity we need to consider not one but two origins. One origin is the gospel storyline - an origin story that is backdated to take account of prophetic interpretations - and mythology. The real, the true, the actual historical origin of Christianity - the time period in which the backdating took place - that is a time period that cannot be date stamped while the gospel storyline is accepted as historical.

Regarding the date stamp for the gospel story timeline.

There are probably multiple ways to apply the numbers in Daniel.ch.9. However, Luke has zoned in on the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 CE.

Generally, Jesus is given from 1 to 3 years for his ministry. (Wikipedia).
Taking the year 33 CE as the cut off year - 490 years (70 weeks) back is 458/457 BC, the 7th year of Artaxerxes - when Ezra brought gold and silver to Jerusalem.

33 CE is 70 years from the 37 BC siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great - which is itself 483 years (69 weeks) from Jerusalem’s wall being rebuilt during the time of Nehemiah in 445 BC, the 20th year of Artaxerxes.

From start to finish......it looks like Daniel ch.9 was pretty much on the minds of the gospel writers. One might go so far as to say that the crucifixion story, set around 33 CE, is dealing more with a symbolic end of the Jerusalem temple - and the beginning of the New Jerusalem and its spiritual Temple. Backdated of course......33 CE the defining moment of a prophetic interpretation - 70 CE therefore reduced to a purely historical event with no prophetic value for early Christians. Anyway, something like that......

bacht

The most important period for Christian origins may have been the years between the fall of the temple and the defeat of bar-Kochba. Possibly there were no Christians before the year 70, and there may not have been any Christians until after the final defeat of Judaea in 135.

As you say the NT writers wanted to incorporate OT prophecy in their story. The history of the church itself may have been re-interpreted later, placing Jesus 40 years before the end of the temple, with Paul as the latecomer apostle fighting for the inclusion of gentiles, a kind of heroic figure to later heterogeneous catholicism.

The official history of the church is not the only way to arrange the sequence of events. If we consider Christianity in broad terms as a syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism then we're not restricted to the 1st C. If we consider "pious fraud" as justifiable in the minds of early catholics then the date scheme in the Christian corpus is open to dispute.

aa5874

Based on Justin Martyr, there were Jesus believers or christians at the time of bar-Kochba.

First Apolgy 33
It would appear that "Paul" was introduced in the canon solely for propaganda and chronological purpose with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr's writings show NO INFLUENCE at all of the Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

If the Pauline letters were early one would expect some influence on the writings of Justin.

Justin could not go past the ascension with any Pauline history or Acts of the Apostles.

Justin in First Apology 42. Every time Justin mentioned the ascension of Jesus nothing Pauline would follow.

The post-ascension history of Justin includes Simon Magus, and the so-called heretic Menander during the time of Claudius, but nothing at all Pauline.

maryhelena

I was for a long time going with the general position re first Paul then the gospels - however, after much thinking and reading posts here - I'm now with aa5874 on his general position - that the writings of 'Paul' are probably later not earlier than the gospels. The prophetic interpretation of that historical time period, plus the mythology that was added to the prophetic interpretation, would indicate that that would have had to have been in place, been in place as a written 'constitution', prior to its re-interpretation as theology/spirituality in the published writings of 'Paul'.

I would imagine that even if the general idea, interpretation re the Daniel' prophecy, was in the minds of some people prior to 70 CE - that only after that date would the road ahead be opened up to actually put pen to paper....

And, of course, from that date of 70 CE and the following years up until 93 CE - we have that renegade Jewish historian to consider - 'Josephus' and his history - along with his clear interest in prophetic interpretations of history.
A man who, if Rachel Ellior' position on the Essenes can be upheld, is a man clearly able to 'invent' history, a man able to re-interpreted history through a prophetic lens. ...

No historical Jesus, no historical Paul, no written parts of the NT prior to 70 CE - are we not coming more and more to having to face 'Josephus'. After all, without 'Josephus' the gospel Jesus would not have a historical leg to stand on.......

hefdaddy42

aa5874, your main thrust seems to be your a priori stance that Jesus and his disciples are fictional creations invented by the Gospel writers, and thus if Paul discusses them at all, then he has obviously read the Gospels. Am I stating your argument correctly?

Loomis

Fyi the resurrection appearance to James can be found in Gospel of the Hebrews.

Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from among them that sleep)." And a little further on the Lord says, "Bring a table and bread." And immediately it is added, "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep."

I was just trying to get a feel for how much you actually know about this stuff.

mountainman

Or if he lived.

bacht

Josephus is interesting. He was a native Palestinian and a participant in the revolt in the 60s, eventually switching loyalty to Rome. He was ideally placed to confirm the basic NT story: John the Baptist, Jesus, James & Cephas, Paul etc. Yet except for a couple of controversial (interpolated?) passages he has nothing to say about Christian activity in his lifetime.

aa could be right about Paul, I'm not qualified to judge. As you know this forum generally assumes the skeptic position on these kinds of questions. The traditional dating of all the church founders is only attested in Christian writings afaik. Without external corroboration there's not much solid history to work with.