Clivedurdle

(From Roman docs thread)

How many comments have people tried to squeeze - like round pegs into square holes - because of assumptions about when Jesus lived?

What would happen if we took them at face value? (Yes I am thinking about a syrian whatever!)

Diogenes the Cynic

I think that the acceptance of the early 1st century is largely anchored in the TF and Tacitus' references to Pilate, is it not?

When did crucifixion first become practiced in Judea?

FreezBee

Oh, there's been a small number suggested - but is the evidence for Jesus being anybody else than a person who lived in the first third of the 1st century ce better than the evidence for Jesus being a person who lived during that period?

- FreezBee

FreezBee

Oh, it was claimed to have been used during the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-75 bce). He is reported to have crucified many pharisees. This according to Flavius Josephus, at least

Edit: I looked it up, and Josephus' references to cruciifixion can be seen here: Josephus' References to Crucifixion. There appears to have been something during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca, 167 bce). Alexander Jannaeys' crucifixions were in 88 bce, and the victiom were 800 pharisees. Seeing that "Jesus" ("Yeshua") is quite a common Jewish name, maybe around 100 or so of these were named "Jesus".


- FreezBee

Clivedurdle

May we take this step by step?

Thallus looks like 100BCE. Acts is very confusing about a bloke in charge of Damascus.

What other "outliers" are there that may not be if we stop assuming anything about Jesus. Why give a reference to Pilate more weight than a comment that seems to point to 100BCE? What other dates are flying around?

I am not sure that crucifixion helps dating - "Christ crucified" sounds like a theological statement.

FreezBee

We prefer to JUMP to conclusions, but it's your thread, so ...

And the gospels?

It's more specific, and it fits with other things - perhaps. Mark mentions that Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection, and there was a couple of those during the prefecture of Pilate.

If Jesus wasn't crucified, then Jesus wasn't Jesus I mean. if we are going to talk about, when Jesus lived, we need to keep something constant, otherwise "Jesus" could be anybody!

The crucifixion is, imho, actually the main ingredient - nothing else is of importance without the crucifixion.

Well, that's just me


- FreezBee

Clivedurdle

Exactly! He might be anybody or nobody!

I am asking do we actually have anything to keep constant here? I did not know about this bloke Thallus who has been shoe horned a hundred and thirty years later!

I just wonder how common a phenomenon this is - because everyone assumes there is a constant in there! But that is an assumption!

FreezBee

Jesus was somebody, the question is: who? The only way for that question to make sense, if we fix at least some events that characterize Jesus as the one we are talking about. Many people were crucified back then, many people did miracles back then, and so on. When we are talking about a historical Jesus, we need first to choose the history.

Could Jesus have been nobody? It's about as hard to prove as that he was somebody. What is the evidence that he was nobody? The missing body?

No, it's not an assumption - it's the core thing! Without a constant, we might be talking about several Jesuses with nothing in common. I am not against the idea that the gospels might have been made up from stories about more than one person, but we would need to prove that, wouldn't we?


- FreezBee

Charles Wilson

The Jesus stories were witten around 8 - 12 CE by survivors of the Temple Assault by Archelaus in 4 BCE. "Jesus" wasn't crucified, The Plan for the end of the Herodians and replacement of the corrupt appointed High Priest was what was destroyed in 4 BCE. The placement of the Jesus events in 30 - 33 CE was an intentional act to completely disconnect any alignment of time and historical markers from their original timeframes.

CW

FreezBee

I'm sure you can back this up with evidence?


- FreezBee