Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-29-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

What tradition?

The christian literary tradition.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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

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

Quote:

But Herod was actually appointed late in 39 bce (since he came to Rome in the winter, Ant. 14.376). Since Herod was appointed by a Gentile power, he probably began to count his official regnal years as beginning on the following Tishri (September/October) of 38 bce (since the Jewish civil year began on Tishri). He may have counted his years as beginning in Nisan (March/April) of 38, but this is less likely, since this was the beginning of the religious year, and it would have been unwise to count a Gentile appointment from a sacred Jewish date. Th is appears to be confirmed by evidence from the coins Herod issued. Herod’s first coins, issued to replace Hasmonean currency, are also the first dated Jewish coins. They are dated to “year three.” Clearly, Herod counted the year he first reigned in Jerusalem as the third year of his reign. This means that he counted his first regnal year as beginning no later than Tishri 38 bce and issued his first coinage shortly after conquering Jerusalem in 36 bce.

Therefore, Herod’s first regnal year would have ended on the last day of Elul in 37 bce , making his one hundred seventh regnal year end in Elul 70 ce . Since the temple fell in Ab 70 ce , eleven months into Herod’s one hundred seventh regnal year, Josephus’ report in Antiquities 20.250 is absolutely correct.

This also implies, however, that in Antiquities Josephus numbered Herod’s regnal years from his appointment by the Romans. Late 39 bce until the beginning of Tishri 38 bce was Herod’s accession year. Tishri 38 bce through Elul 37 bce was Herod’s first official regnal year. The conclusion then follows that the other regnal dates for Herod found in Josephus also count his regnal years from his appointment by the Romans:

Table 4.
Josephus’ References to Herod’s Regnal Years Coordinated to Julian Dates

[T2]{r:bg=royalblue}{c:bg=royalblue;ah=center}Josephus Reference
|
{c:ah=center}Herod's Regnal Year
|
{c:ah=center}Event
|
{c:ah=center}Date
||
Antiquities 15.121
|
Seventh
|
Battle of Actium
|
Sept. 2, 31 BCE
||
Antiquities 15.354
|
Eighteenth ("after Herod had reigned seventeen years")
|
Caesar in Syria
|
Spring 20 BCE
||
Antiquities 15.380
War 1.401
|
Eighteenth
Fifteenth
|
Work on Temple begun.
|
21-20 BCE
[Likely spring 20 BCE?]
||
Antiquities 16.136
|
Twenty-eighth
|
Work on Caesarea Sebaste completed
|
11-10 BCE[/T2]

http://historiantigua.cl/wp-content/...reat_Reign.pdf

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

: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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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

I wasn't expecting it to.

Posting useless stuff doesn't get us anywhere.

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:

Quote:

At the same time we know that John the Baptist was supposedly executed perhaps a year before Jesus was and given John's execution for fear of sedition is tied causally to the war of 36 CE between Antipas and Aretas by Josephus (AJ 18.109-118). If John's death had been too long before the outcome of the war his relevance to it would not have been justifiable. So we have a death of Jesus according to this chronology somewhere around the time of the war.

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).

I had hoped the issue about JtB would have cautioned you from digging yourself further into the hole of fundamentalist use of "scripture". I wasted my time whinging about the stupidity over Herod's building of the temple, because you proceeded to find one article that gave you a lone opinion which could help you with an extra year from 40 to 39 BCE and from there a gallop through a bunch of other straw graspings down to the arbitrary choice of the gospel least likely to contain even an iota of history so that you could come to the basically scripturally acceptable date of 30CE. Put it all to the music of Joe Vega... a little fudge here and a little fudge there... I bet you could do wonders with the chronology of Daniel's "prophecies".

la70119 · 05-30-2012, 12:49 AM

Forget it. I DON'T KN OW ANYTHING AND I DOBN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I AM DOING IN ANYTHING I DO. I MIGHT AS WELL KILL MYSELF, EXCEPT I CAN'T DO THAT, EITHER. I'M TOO CHICKENSHIT.

Farewell.

spin · 05-30-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Forget it. I DON'T KN OW ANYTHING AND I DOBN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I AM DOING IN ANYTHING I DO. I MIGHT AS WELL KILL MYSELF, EXCEPT I CAN'T DO THAT, EITHER. I'M TOO CHICKENSHIT.

Farewell.

If this response is serious, send me a private message to slap me down.

stephan huller · 05-30-2012, 01:25 AM

Wow this is a serious turn of events here. LA, spin is a nice guy. Trust me. Don't take this board too seriously. Take it easy.

Grog · 05-30-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Papyrus P52 is usually dated 117-138 CE, or before 100 CE to 150 CE, with a median date of 125 CE.
The curious thing about it, it has neither the Nomina Sacra, nor Jesus' name in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

Usually?
Schmidt dates it to 170 +/- 25 years.

Others date it late 2nd C.

K.

And yet you will still see sober, learned scholars cite, unqualified, 125 CE.

Adam · 05-30-2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You must have me on ignore. I have consistently shown that the gospels were written before 70 CE, based on my own analysis. I do acknowledge, however, that some of what we now have in the gospels and Acts may have been added after 70 CE. However, the written testimony of seven eyewitnesses was already all done by 70 CE.

Duvduv · 05-31-2012, 07:55 AM

Identifying them with the second century is extremely generous considering all the anomalies, questions, holes, contradictions etc. elicited directly from the later propagandists known as historians and heresiologists.

A second century anchor relies heavily on accepting their claims at face value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You must have me on ignore. I have consistently shown that the gospels were written before 70 CE, based on my own analysis. I do acknowledge, however, that some of what we now have in the gospels and Acts may have been added after 70 CE. However, the written testimony of seven eyewitnesses was already all done by 70 CE.

aa5874 · 05-31-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Identifying them with the second century is extremely generous considering all the anomalies, questions, holes, contradictions etc. elicited directly from the later propagandists known as historians and heresiologists.

A second century anchor relies heavily on accepting their claims at face value....

We can accept Manuscripts that are DATED by any ACCEPTABLE method of Dating ancient texts. Paleography is an ACCEPTABLE method of dating ancient manuscripts.

We have manuscripts with the Jesus story DATED by Paleography BEFORE the 4th century so it simply does NOT make any sense at this time to argue that the Jesus stories were written in the 4th century.

Please, please, please!!!!

It can be argued and corroborated by Paleography and C 14 that there was NO Jesus story and NO Pauline letters in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The books of the NT Canon were ALL written AFTER c 70 CE.

Duvduv · 05-31-2012, 09:22 AM

Yes, yes, AA. I know you consider the paleographic "evidence" as holy writ not to be unquestioned, even on scraps of parchment. I don't look at it this way, either in these cases or in the cases of the DSS. However, I was specifically talking about the writings of the propagandists and their claims about Christianity reaching back to the 2nd century, including Justin and Irenaeus and Tertullian.

But if you wish to rely on the claims of the propagandists or the unquestioning holy paleographic "evidence," that's your prerogative.

aa5874 · 05-31-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, yes, AA. I know you consider the paleographic "evidence" as holy writ not to be unquestioned, even on scraps of parchment. I don't look at it this way, either in these cases or in the cases of the DSS. However, I was specifically talking about the writings of the propagandists and their claims about Christianity reaching back to the 2nd century, including Justin and Irenaeus and Tertullian....

Why do you continue to make erroneous statements about my position. Why can't you simply repeat what I say instead of mis-leading rhetoric??

I have stated CLEARLY that Paleography is an ACCEPTABLE method of Dating ancient manuscript. Never did I state Paleography is holy writ and not to be unquestioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....But if you wish to rely on the claims of the propagandists or the unquestioning holy paleographic "evidence," that's your prerogative.

Again, your rhetoric is not getting you anywhere.

The Jesus story was placed in the 1st century sometime between 1 BCE to 36 CE and Paul supposedly wrote letters before c 70 CE so I don't KNOW why propagandists would DATE all the ancient New Testament manuscripts OUTSIDE the 1st century.

It is not even remotely logical that propagandists would DATE all New Testament manuscripts OUTSIDE 1 BCE--70 CE and fabricate ALL 2nd century NON-APOLOGETIC arguments AGAINST the Jesus story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2012, 12:49 AM	#42
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	Forget it. I DON'T KN OW ANYTHING AND I DOBN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I AM DOING IN ANYTHING I DO. I MIGHT AS WELL KILL MYSELF, EXCEPT I CAN'T DO THAT, EITHER. I'M TOO CHICKENSHIT. Farewell.

05-30-2012, 01:25 AM	#44
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Wow this is a serious turn of events here. LA, spin is a nice guy. Trust me. Don't take this board too seriously. Take it easy.

05-31-2012, 09:22 AM	#49
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Yes, yes, AA. I know you consider the paleographic "evidence" as holy writ not to be unquestioned, even on scraps of parchment. I don't look at it this way, either in these cases or in the cases of the DSS. However, I was specifically talking about the writings of the propagandists and their claims about Christianity reaching back to the 2nd century, including Justin and Irenaeus and Tertullian. But if you wish to rely on the claims of the propagandists or the unquestioning holy paleographic "evidence," that's your prerogative.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.