When did Jesus actually die?

[PoloPrincess]

Can someone point me in the right direction?
We know that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Then what happened? When and how did he finally die?

53rd

Not unthinkable, just an amazing coincidence that a handy biblical scholar should just pop up. Particularly one with such a similar, informal, conversational posting style to your own.

Wonders never cease I suppose.

Like I said, dude, I have zero interest in gotchas, ‘mic drop’ moments, or supporting you in your deeply emotive quest to feel whatever it is you’re after feeling. I’m not Dione either...

Wow. Yes, I'm a long time lurker, have been around since 2014 - feel free to check my profile! I did indeed click on this thread as it is my field.

Can I join in now that I've proved my existence?

Patriarchy, accusing people of trolling and sockpuppeting is against MN rules. If you’re seriously worried I’m doing that, you can report my/others’ posts to MNHQ and ask them to do an IP check.

You’re not doing wonders for the atheist promotional cause here, I have to say.

OK I'll bite.

Bonting, what is your religious position if you don't mind me asking?

I'm a Christian.

In biblical studies, as in any other discipline, there is no such thing as a neutral perspective. It seems obvious today, yet criticism of Biblical scholarship is IMO fully justified when it claimed - in the not too distant past - an objectivity that was patently impossible given its confessional setting. Yes, some scholars still claim to be neutral or objective but happily these are a dying breed - subjectivity and revealed bias is the exciting and constructive way forward! Therefore, happy to declare my subjective position as a Christian: however, I'm not an evangelical and have no interest in defending biblical inerrancy and no expectation of finding the 'truth'. My interests are in the 'gaps' where the texts are suspiciously silent, and beyond that, the weird and wonderful ways in which those gaps have been filled and accounted for through the ages - the date of Easter being a case in point! Funnily enough, it is atheist and agnostic scholars who are very good to work with on this kind of textual reading, and it is by working together rather than in opposition that we discover the really interesting stuff.

Sorry, that was a wordy answer.. It's something of a hobby horse of mine though - I'll get down off the soap box now!

Patriarchy, how old is that quote? I haven't been a Christian in years.

Bonting

So presumably you believe Jesus was a real person.

How do you deal with the inconsistencies in the different NT accounts?

Dione

Brilliant.

🤦

The inconsistencies are the interesting bits. Generally, when the different accounts agree the tendency is to assume one was based on the other or that both were based on the same source - hence the theory of 'Q' as an undiscovered text which was the basis for the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).

As I mentioned earlier, I don't subscribe to the idea of Biblical inerrancy and I don't think the gospel writers or compilers were neutral or objective. Some may have been eyewitnesses, but my view is that it is more likely each gospel was written with a particular agenda for a particular audience. So for example Mark can be read as a very politically subversive book, Luke as very pro-Roman. None of the gospels were written earlier than at least 20 years after the death of Jesus - my opinion! - although there are interesting arguments to be made about the exact dates of writing.

Does that answer your question?

What do you mean Brilliant? How old is the quote?

Bonting

Given the dating of the gospels, how were the writers potential eye witnesses?

My fundamental issues here are that there are no eye witness accounts of Jesus's life. All of the biblical accounts are after the fact renditions or plagarisations of a legend they have heard, and most importantly were incentivized to believe.

There are numerous writings from the time that are dismissed as fictional, (Gospel of Thomas anyone?) on what basis are they any less or more reliable than the conventional gospels? If they can be so easily dismissed then why can't conventional biblical texts be?

Why is Jesus not mentioned by any of the contemporary writers who were active at the time of his supposed life? (I included a list at the start of this thread)

I can go on but you get the point without going into tedious specifics.

Coming away from the specifics of the Bible, I take wider issue with the idea within your field that because this is labelled a 'fringe theory', theologians seem unwilling to even talk about it. I could understand that would be the case for say an evolutionary biologist who suddenly came to believe in creationism, however in a field focussed on history and literary criticism, it seems a little restrictive...

Again I'd understand it if the evidence were so convincing that no comebacks were ever possible, however the only real argument I have heard when you get down to brass tacks seems to be that if we dismiss the existence of Jesus, then we have to dismiss the existence of some other early figures in history that we currently take for granted, as they are based on similar levels of evidence.

My answer to it is 'ok, let's call into question the existence of other historical figures then'.

Surely you can see how that argument doesn't support the existence of Jesus, it just potentially undermines the existence of (some) other historical figures?

I'd also argue that for the relatively obscure historical figures that are dragged into this argument, there was very little incentive for people to fictionalised their existence, as they wouldn't really benefit from it in any way, however I think it's fair to say that early Christians were strongly incentivized to argue that Jesus was a real person who actually lived.

Oh my last post was to Patriarchy.

Bonting

Also I'm aware you can't answer this exactly but I'd appreciate it if you give it your best shot.

Can you give a percentage figure on how many of your colleagues in Theological studies are Agnostics or Atheists and how many hold a religious belief of some form?

Is the split roughly 50/50? 60/40? 80/20?

Interesting question re the percentage split - I would say maybe 30/70 agnostic/confessional, although within that there is a spectrum of agnosticism/atheism as well as a very wide range of Christianities/Judaisms - another big advantage of a secular academic context over a denominational seminary.

September not December

The gospels draw heavily on first hand memories. Acts was also written by someone who was actually there at the time and lots of times in the book of Luke it says 'and then we did this or that'.
The book of Matthew was written by the disciple (follower and friend) of Jesus. Mark was likely written by John Mark who lived in Jerusalem in the early church times (AC 12). His house was a meeting place for the first Christians. Luke was written by a doctor funnily enough called Luke, friends with Paul (wrote lots of books). Luke's aim was to write a proper history of what actually happened. He declares at the beginning that he carefully studied the sources and he aims to present a careful survey of the life and teaching of Jesus. The book of John was written by Jesus friend John.

On your other points (on my phone so forgive me if I miss any as I'm scrolling back and forth!)

Gospel writers may have been eyewitnesses but didn't compile their accounts at the time. Eg gospel of John likely to have been written towards the end of his life, around 90CE.

I would disagree with you that there was an incentive for early Christians to believe in Jesus, and argue the opposite. For example, crucifixion was a very common and very political punishment and not something you would make up for the founder of your movement if it wasn't true. Equally, mystical healers were two a penny - why risk your credibility as a serious religious movement by claiming this of your leader? The Jesus movement claimed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah - yet he didn't act like any messiah should have done, didn't lead the Jews to freedom and death and resurrection wasn't part of that expectation either.

Gospel of Thomas - my view is that it is legitimate and not fiction, but it is not an account of the life of Jesus as the other gospels are but rather is a collection of sayings. Many of these are repeated in the other gospels. Possibly it is this that meant it didn't make it into the canon, perhaps it just didn't meet the agenda of the bishops who authorised the official new testament.

Non existence of Jesus as a fringe theory.
You have to admit it is something of a dead end as far as new testament research goes! I would even go so far as to classify it with the very evangelical dead end (for debating purposes anyway) of 'it must be true, its in the bible'. My opinion, obviously, but not an isolated one I don't think.

Essentially, you could say that a lot of energy is expended in the new testament to defending a philosophy not on its own merits - which could easily and convincingly be done - but on the basis of it being the message of a politically and religiously suspect peasant. What would be the point, if he never existed?

Sorry, had meant to send that post earlier in response to someone's question..

As to why Jesus wasn't mentioned in contemporary writings: he was an itinerant healer and preacher who never gained a very big following in his lifetime, the gospel accounts support this. As I said above, there were lots of prophets and healers around at the time (John the Baptist was one) - there was nothing very exceptional about that which would merit recording it.

The most remarkable thing about Jesus from a historical perspective is the explosion of the church after his death. That IS something that is widely recorded in contemporary writings - Eg. Philo, Tacitus etc.

I was convinced Dione was lying to try and prove a point from her general manner and passive aggressive 'naive' questioning. So I did a quick advanced search over my lunch break. Imagine my surprise when her name crops up regularly in threads discussing Christianity, including telling people how she regularly attends church and discussing the pros and cons of different approaches from ministers and priests. As if I need a 'gotcha' but:

I feel I must respond to this.

The quote that you have used Patriarchy is from 8 or 9 years ago. You claim to have AS my posts. If you had done so, you would have discovered the precise moment I stopped identifying as a Christian because it happened on this very forum when I was asked if I believed in the divinity of Jesus. I replied that I didn't.

Other posters asked me how I could call myself a Christian and I agreed with them that I could no longer do so. I haven't ever since. That was 7, 8 or 9 years ago.

So you are wrong. I am not a Christian and I have not lied about it.

What seems to have happened is that you have sought information to confirm a pre-existing bias. And reached your own gotcha/mic drop conclusion. Is this how you approach "research" in general or just in relation to me?

From Jesus to Christ

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

You can't watch the actual documentaries but you can find them on YouTube

Dione

Have you ever looked up the term 'lying by ommission?'

An example might be trying to gain the appearance of impartiality in an online discussion about Christianity by stating 'i'm not a Christian.' and asking superficially naive questions about Jesus but leaving out the critical detail that you used to be a Christian and a regular church attendee.

Bonting

I'm also on my phone now I'm afraid but I do take issue with some, if not all of your underlying assumptions.

I'll try and get on my laptop later to give you a considered response, however you still haven't addressed my main point.

With no contemporary evidence or writings and no eyewitness accounts, how can you or anyone else make the claim he was a real person?

As noted earlier I can't prove he wasn't, but that doesn't make the odds exactly 50/50 does it?

For example if I wrote about a person who I claimed lived in the 1940s say, with no other evidence than my word to support it, would you take what I said at face value? So why do we do the same for the gospels?

Its only when you start praying to God that He would reveal Jesus to you, do you really start knowing that He exists. Answers to prayer and an overwhelming sense that He is at work in your life over a period of time is what nailed it for me. You can have all the unanswered theoretical questions that you like but once you start praying "God reveal your self to me and reveal myself to me so I get why I need you" does it start clicking into place. The Holy Spirit is opening your eyes and heart OP and I'm praying for you that you will enjoy the journey into a life filled with hope that you find when you come to Christ.