How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Prophet]

hey Prophet, (I guess you aren't one)
Same question as last blog...
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?

I have no answer for you about the date someone first wrote Jesus' name (if we're talking extant, you might get an answer), but it is recorded by Tacitus that Christians were widely considered an abomination by the Roman populace during Great Fire of Rome of 64 AD. It is highly unlikely that Christians could become such an annoyance to the empire without their prophet becoming well known and likely written of well before this time.

 

[Prophet]

Prophet writes about 'swathes of evidence in the case of Jesus', but the scholarly consensus of opinion seems to (mainly) support J's baptism, temple demonstration and execution.

It would be interesting to review a more extensive list, amounting to 'swathes of evidence', if Prophet could actually present this.

Was the temple demonstration one of those things corroborated by evidence external to the Bible? I may have missed that if it was presented.

However, this challenge posed to me by oldbadger was already posed to Legion by Bunyip, to which Legion responded by citing Roman historical works which unambiguously place emperors as deities. This should trigger Bunyip's made-up history rule that declares writings which refer to their subject as deity as null and void, but instead triggers Bunyip's double-standard which excuses historical evidence for emperors from the same stringent standards on basis of fallacious appeals to authority.

 

[`mud]

thanks Prophet
~

Thinking out loud...if Saul was born about BC1, round about the birth of Jesus, and nothing was written about Jesus until AD52...
that doesn't make sense to me, weren't the letters to the kings before that time ?
I thought Saul was about 35 years old at the time of the letters.
That would make Matthew to be about 35 also. Cheeeeesssss I'm confused now, getting old.
I thought that Matthew was around 65 when the letters were written...
Oh well....someone please help me out.
~
'mud

 

[Prophet]

thanks Prophet
~

Thinking out loud...if Saul was born about BC1, round about the birth of Jesus, and nothing was written about Jesus until AD52...
that doesn't make sense to me, weren't the letters to the kings before that time ?
I thought Saul was about 35 years old at the time of the letters.
That would make Matthew to be about 35 also. Cheeeeesssss I'm confused now, getting old.
I thought that Matthew was around 65 when the letters were written...
Oh well....someone please help me out.
~
'mud

The Book of Matthew has not been linked to a real Matthew to the best of my knowledge. Christianity was born in a hostile environment, meaning that the first Jesus references in writing met the flame long ago.

 

[oldbadger]

The earliest written document we have is 1st Thessalonians. And I think mud is closer, I might put it a little earlier, maybe 52.

We do have evidence that there were earlier written documents, but they have not survived.

Hi fantome...
The date that you attributed to mud was my guess for Gospel of Mark CE55-60 (ish)
.... This is why I was prepared to guess late 30's CE for Paul's first letters (thanks for the Thessalonians lead).

What is your best guess for Saul's conversion?
How soon after that might his 1st (known letter..... Thessalonians) have been written?
I'm just thinking your date proposal is a bit late?
Any chance you could bring it forward?

 

[oldbadger]

Was the temple demonstration one of those things corroborated by evidence external to the Bible? I may have missed that if it was presented.

.... maybe not corroborated outside of NT, but indirectly so, since there had to be a crime for there to be an execution........ kind of thinking...... not certin, of course, but plausible.

However, this challenge posed to me by oldbadger was already posed to Legion by Bunyip, to which Legion responded by citing Roman historical works which unambiguously place emperors as deities. This should trigger Bunyip's made-up history rule that declares writings which refer to their subject as deity as null and void, but instead triggers Bunyip's double-standard which excuses historical evidence for emperors from the same stringent standards on basis of fallacious appeals to authority.

This is Prophet's response to a request for 'swathes of evidence' for historical Jesus. Prophet's swathes of evidence failed to even mention Jesus's name.
Never mind..... it was spirited attempt.

 

[fantome profane]

Hi fantome...
The date that you attributed to mud was my guess for Gospel of Mark CE55-60 (ish)
.... This is why I was prepared to guess late 30's CE for Paul's first letters (thanks for the Thessalonians lead).

What is your best guess for Saul's conversion?
How soon after that might his 1st (known letter..... Thessalonians) have been written?
I'm just thinking your date proposal is a bit late?
Any chance you could bring it forward?

Keep in mind that 1st Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul's letters that we have. That does not mean that it is the first letter he wrote, just the first of those that have survived. Paul likely wrote many letters that we don't have.

The date of 52 is not written in stone, but I think early to mid 50's. I can't bring it too much forward, certainly not as early as 35-38. That date might be reasonable for the date of Paul's conversion, the earliest writing we have from him is from many years after that. Thessalonians talks about a church community, consisting of several different small churches in the area, that have been in existence for some time. It talks about people in that church who have died. Paul has been there and gone, and they have written to him, and now he is writing back. And Paul has set up other church communities in other places by this time. This is not from the late 30's as you suggest, too much has happened.

If you wanted to put this in the late forties, I might consider it (49, 48). But I couldn't go earlier than that.

And Mark I date to around 70 CE.

 

[fantome profane]

thanks Prophet
~

Thinking out loud...if Saul was born about BC1, round about the birth of Jesus, and nothing was written about Jesus until AD52...
that doesn't make sense to me, weren't the letters to the kings before that time ?
I thought Saul was about 35 years old at the time of the letters.
That would make Matthew to be about 35 also. Cheeeeesssss I'm confused now, getting old.
I thought that Matthew was around 65 when the letters were written...
Oh well....someone please help me out.
~
'mud

What letters to what kings? I think you are confused. Could you clarify for us what letters you are thinking of?

 

[oldbadger]

Keep in mind that 1st Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul's letters that we have. That does not mean that it is the first letter he wrote, just the first of those that have survived. Paul likely wrote many letters that we don't have.

The date of 52 is not written in stone, but I think early to mid 50's. I can't bring it too much forward, certainly not as early as 35-38. That date might be reasonable for the date of Paul's conversion, the earliest writing we have from him is from many years after that. Thessalonians talks about a church community, consisting of several different small churches in the area, that have been in existence for some time. It talks about people in that church who have died. Paul has been there and gone, and they have written to him, and now he is writing back. And Paul has set up other church communities in other places by this time. This is not from the late 30's as you suggest, too much has happened.

If you wanted to put this in the late forties, I might consider it (49, 48). But I couldn't go earlier than that.

And Mark I date to around 70 CE.

I will copy all that and keep it........ best time-proposal I have ever seen.
This pushes my reliance on 'oral tradition' of the detail of Jesus's mission out much further than I thought. Up until now I have guessed at an O/T of 30 years to the written accounts (G-Mark) but that clearly seems to be too early. It's looking like 40 years now.

I do like your proposed time-line for Paul's activity.... Thanks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And Mark I date to around 70 CE.

Based upon?

 

[fantome profane]

Based upon?

I will get back to you an a few moments, but would you mind giving me what you think is the best date for the gospel of Mark? Just so I know where you are coming from.

(In the meantime I will check my notes )

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I will get back to you an a few moments, but would you mind giving me what you think is the best date for the gospel of Mark? Just so I know where you are coming from.

(In the meantime I will check my notes )

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. My general doubt in everything with reference to anything is a factor, but I tend to side with those who argue that the author of Mark shows indications that the revolt had already happened (contra à la Maurice Casey and numerous others who predate it and contra those who date to early so-called gnostic texts). On the one hand, we have the "prophecies" in Mark that could be interpreted as actual predictions which foresaw Jesus' execution. On the other hand, it is easy to see these as retroactively projected onto the past rather than any actual predictions. Granted, the issue is VASTLY more complex than this (as it depends upon e.g., Holtzmann's priority arguments, the two-source hypothesis, etc.). On the other, we're left with best guesses while ridding ourselves of informative contexts.

 

[`mud]

hey Fantome,
Sorry about that 'king' stuff...it's an old habit coming from my early youth studying with Nuns in chatechism.
Something about the bishops being kings in the church...stuff like that....sorry
I tend to confuse the habit with my studying Isaiah in some old testament studies.
I'm getting too old for this crap !!
~
'mud

 

[oldbadger]

hey Fantome,
Sorry about that 'king' stuff...it's an old habit coming from my early youth studying with Nuns in chatechism.
Something about the bishops being kings in the church...stuff like that....sorry
I tend to confuse the habit with my studying Isaiah in some old testament studies.
I'm getting too old for this crap !!
~
'mud

THat explains your kings nicely. I never heard that before, but it makes great sense now.

And you're never too old for all this.......... never.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Thinking out loud...if Saul was born about BC1, round about the birth of Jesus, and nothing was written about Jesus until AD52...

Don't worry about exact dates of anything mate, for example I was a teenager in the 1960's and could sit down now 50 years later and write a pretty good history of 1960's pop music because I WAS THERE, how kool is that!
Same with the gospels and Paul's stuff, nobody really cares about the exact date when they wrote after Jesus's death, they all knew him, THEY WERE THERE..

 

[oldbadger]

Don't worry about exact dates of anything mate, for example I was a teenager in the 1960's and could sit down now 50 years later and write a pretty good history of 1960's pop music because I WAS THERE, how kool is that!
Same with the gospels and Paul's stuff, nobody really cares about the exact date when they wrote after Jesus's death, they all knew him, THEY WERE THERE..

Yeah, but Paul was nowhere near Jesus ............ until he had a blindingly good idea on the road to Damascus.

That's like you telling us what Cilla had for breakfast, etc......

 

[`mud]

Ruddy good there !
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

Based upon?

The events described in context leave a fairly small window that educated guesses place about 70CE ish

And two helpings of appealing to authorty

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..but Paul was nowhere near Jesus ............ until he had a blindingly good idea on the road to Damascus.
That's like you telling us what Cilla had for breakfast, etc......

Paul had a good steady job as a bounty hunter on the payroll of the snooty priests, rounding up Christians for trial and punishment, so NO WAY HOZAY would he resign to become an unpaid Christian unless something dramatic happened like getting blasted off his feet by Jesus like he was..

Jesus- "Hey man what's your beef with me?"
Paul- "Sorry man I was wrong, now I know you're my world and everything!"

 

[Bunyip]

Paul had a good steady job as a bounty hunter on the payroll of the snooty priests, rounding up Christians for trial and punishment, so NO WAY HOZAY would he resign to become an unpaid Christian unless something dramatic happened like getting blasted off his feet by Jesus like he was..

Jesus- "Hey man what's your beef with me?"
Paul- "Sorry man I was wrong, now I know you're my world and everything!"

Paul never met the historical Jesus - only the resurrected Jesus.