Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-17-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

After all, or, if you like, before all, since you (Marcion) have said that he has a creation of his own, and his own world, and his own sky; we shall see, indeed, about that third heaven, when we come to discuss even your own apostle. Meanwhile, whatever is the (created) substance, it ought at any rate to have made its appearance in company with its own god. But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus (= the time Tertullian was presumably writing); although, as being more excellent than the paltry works of the Creator, it should certainly have ceased to conceal itself, when its lord and author no longer lies hid? I ask, therefore, if it was unable to manifest itself in this world, how did its Lord appear in this world? If this world received its Lord, why was it not able to receive the created substance, unless perchance it was greater than its Lord? But now there arises a question about place, having reference both to the world above and to the God thereof. For, behold, if he has his own world beneath him, above the Creator, he has certainly fixed it in a position, the space of which was empty between his own feet and the Creator's head. Therefore God both Himself occupied local space, and caused the world to occupy local space; and this local space, too, will be greater than God and the world together. For in no case is that which contains not greater than that which is contained. And indeed we must look well to it that no small patches be left here and there vacant, in which some third god also may be able with a world of his own to foist himself in. Now, begin to reckon up your gods. There will be local space for a god, not only as being greater than God, but as being also unbegotten and unmade, and therefore eternal, and equal to God, in which God has ever been. Then, inasmuch as He too has fabricated a world out of some underlying material which is unbegotten, and unmade, and contemporaneous with God, just as Marcion holds of the Creator, you reduce this likewise to the dignity of that local space which has enclosed two gods, both God and matter. For matter also is a god according to the rule of Deity, being (to be sure) unbegotten, and unmade, and eternal. If, however, it was out of nothing that he made his world, this also (our heretic) will be obliged to predicate of the Creator, to whom he subordinates matter in the substance of the world. But it will be only right that he too should have made his world out of matter, because the same process occurred to him as God which lay before the Creator as equally God. And thus you may, if you please, reckon up so far, three gods as Marcion's—the Maker, local space, and matter. Furthermore, he in like manner makes the Creator a god in local space, which is itself to be appraised on a precisely identical scale of dignity; and to Him as its lord he subordinates matter, which is notwithstanding unbegotten, and unmade, and by reason hereof eternal. With this matter he further associates evil, an unbegotten principle with an unbegotten object, an unmade with an unmade, and an eternal with an eternal; so here he makes a fourth God. Accordingly you have three substances of Deity in the higher instances, and in the lower ones four. When to these are added their Christs— the one which appeared in the time of Tiberius, the other which is promised by the Creator— Marcion suffers a manifest wrong from those persons who assume that he holds two gods, whereas he implies no less than nine, though he knows it not.[Against Marcion 1.15]

I have no explanation for this variant dating. I suspect it was the original Marcionite reading. The twelfth year, twelfth month (cf. Irenaeus AH 2.22), twelfth disciple etc.

stephan huller · 02-17-2012, 01:08 AM

Clement has a lot of interesting things to say about the chronology:

Quote:

And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months (= 28 CE);

and from the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) to the death of Commodus (Dec 31 192 CE), a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days. (= 63 CE?)

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. (= 2 BCE)

At first glance the chronology that 'works' seems to be 'correct.' Yet I think this was added by a later editor. Just look at what immediately follows:

Quote:

And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings. And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

If Clement really believes that the baptism of Jesus took place on the fifteenth of Tiberius why does he go on to say 'the Basilideans say this' or 'that'? How can he get the dates of Jesus's ministry so right relative to the destruction but not the date relative to a recent historical event - i.e. the death of Commodus? Surely one would expect Clement to nail the latter. The answer is that the Stromata has been edited. This is the only place in Clement's writings that 'the Gospel of Luke' is mentioned.

Look again at the whole section from the beginning and notice that the introduction of Luke breaks up the original narrative:

Quote:

After the Grecian period, and in accordance with the dates, as computed by the barbarians, very large intervals are to be assigned.

From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years. Then from the judges to Samuel, four hundred and sixty-three years, seven months. And after the judges there were five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, ten days of kings.

After which periods, there were two hundred and thirty-five years of the Persian monarchy. Then of the Macedonian, till the death of Antony, three hundred and twelve years and eighteen days. After which time, the empire of the Romans, till the death of Commodus, lasted for two hundred and twenty-two years.

Then, from the seventy years' captivity, and the restoration of the people into their own land to the captivity in the time of Vespasian, are comprised four hundred and ten years: Finally, from Vespasian to the death of Commodus, there are ascertained to be one hundred and twenty-one years, six months, and twenty-four days.

Demetrius, in his book, On the Kings in Judaea, says that the tribes of Juda, Benjamin, and Levi were not taken captive by Sennacherim; but that there were from this captivity to the last, which Nabuchodonosor made out of Jerusalem, a hundred and twenty-eight years and six months; and from the time that the ten tribes were carried captive from Samaria till Ptolemy the Fourth, were five hundred and seventy-three years, nine months; and from the time that the captivity from Jerusalem took place, three hundred and thirty-eight years and three months.

Philo himself set down the kings differently from Demetrius. Besides, Eupolemus, in a similar work, says that all the years from Adam to the fifth year of Ptolemy Demetrius, who reigned twelve years in Egypt, when added, amount to five thousand a hundred and forty-nine; and from the time that Moses brought out the Jews from Egypt to the above-mentioned date, there are, in all, two thousand five hundred and eighty years. And from this time till the consulship in Rome of Caius Domitian and Casian, a hundred and twenty years are computed.

Euphorus and many other historians say that there are seventy-five nations and tongues, in consequence of hearing the statement made by Moses: "All the souls that sprang from Jacob, which went down into Egypt, were seventy-five." According to the true reckoning, there appear to be seventy-two generic dialects, as our Scriptures hand down. The rest of the vulgar tongues are formed by the blending of two, or three, or more dialects.

A dialect is a mode of speech which exhibits a character peculiar to a locality, or a mode of speech which exhibits a character peculiar or common to a race. The Greeks say, that among them are five dialects -- the Attic, Ionic, Doric, Aeolic, and the fifth the Common; and that the languages of the barbarians, which are innumerable, are not called dialects, but tongues.

Plato attributes a dialect also to the gods, forming this conjecture mainly from dreams and oracles, and especially from demoniacs, who do not speak their own language or dialect, but that of the demons who have taken possession of them. He thinks also that the irrational creatures have dialects, which those that belong to the same genus understand. Accordingly, when an elephant falls into the mud and bellows out any other one that is at hand, on seeing what has happened, shortly turns, and brings with him a herd of elephants, and saves the one that has fallen in. It is said also in Libya, that a scorpion, if it does not succeed in stinging a man, goes away and returns with several more; and that, hanging on one to the other like a chain they make in this way the attempt to succeed in their cunning design.

The irrational creatures do not make use of an obscure intimation, or hint their meaning by assuming a particular attitude, but, as I think, by a dialect of their own. And some others say, that if a fish which has been taken escape by breaking the line, no fish of the same kind will be caught in the same place that day. But the first and generic barbarous dialects have terms by nature, since also men confess that prayers uttered in a barbarian tongue are more powerful. And Plato, in the Cratylus, when wishing to interpret pyr (fire), says that it is a barbaric term. He testifies, accordingly, that the Phrygians use this term with a slight deviation.

And nothing, in my opinion, after these details, need stand in the way of stating the periods of the Roman emperors, in order to the demonstration of the Saviour's birth. Augustus, forty-three years; Tiberius, twenty-two years; Caius, four years; Claudius, fourteen years; Nero, fourteen years; Galba, one year; Vespasian, ten years; Titus, three years; Domitian, fifteen years; Nerva, one year; Trajan, nineteen years; Adrian, twenty-one years; Antoninus, twenty-one years; likewise again, Antoninus and Commodus, thirty-two. In all, from Augustus to Commodus, are two hundred and twenty-two years; and from Adam to the death of Commodus, five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days.

Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus: Caius Julius Caesar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Caesar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and be by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days.

Caius Julius Caesar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Caesar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and be by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days.

From Julius Caesar, therefore, to the death of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus, amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord was born in the twenty- eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus.

And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old,"(2) and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written

3) "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months;

and from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus, a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days.

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.

And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

We have still to add to our chronology the following,--I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away."(1)

These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.

And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord. "For," it is said,(4) "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon till Christ are likewise other fourteen generations,"--three mystic intervals completed in six weeks.

So much for the details respecting dates, as stated variously by many, and as set down by us.

It is said that the Scriptures both of the law and of the prophets were translated from the dialect of the Hebrews into the Greek language in the reign of Ptolemy the son of Lagos, or, according to others, of Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus; Demetrius Phalereus bringing to this task the greatest earnestness, and employing painstaking accuracy on the materials for the translation. For the Macedonians being still in possession of Asia, and the king being ambitious of adorning the library he had at Alexandria with all writings, desired the people of Jerusalem to translate the prophecies they possessed into the Greek dialect. And they being the subjects of the Macedonians, selected from those of highest character among them seventy elders, versed in the Scriptures, and skilled in the Greek dialect, and sent them to him with the divine books. And each having severally translated each prophetic book, and all the translations being compared together, they agreed both in meaning and expression. For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit of Grecian ears. It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy. Since the Scriptures having perished in the captivity of Nabuchodonosor, Esdras the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, having become inspired in the exercise of prophecy restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures. And Aristobulus, in his first book addressed to Philometor, writes in these words: "And Plato followed the laws given to us, and had manifestly studied all that is said in them." And before Demetrius there had been translated by another, previous to the dominion of Alexander and of the Persians, the account of the departure of our countrymen the Hebrews from Egypt, and the fame of all that happened to them, and their taking possession of the land, and the account of the whole code of laws; so that it is perfectly clear that the above-mentioned philosopher derived a great deal from this source, for he was very learned, as also Pythagoras, who transferred many things from our books to his own system of doctrines. And Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, expressly writes: "For what is Plato, but Moses speak ing in Attic Greek?" This Moses was a theologian and prophet, and as some say, an interpreter of sacred laws. His family, his deeds, and life, are related by the Scriptures themselves, which are worthy of all credit; but have nevertheless to be stated by us also as well as we can.

Clement NEVER mentions the names of the canonical gospels. I can only think of one other time that 'John' is mentioned (and I suspect even that was an interpolation). The fact that both 'Luke' and 'Matthew' are mentioned here side by side in a text WHERE THESE REFERENCES ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE makes it seem highly likely to me that these are later interpolations (a situation already mentioned by Jerome who says that Clement's texts were altered by the Arians)

andrewcriddle · 02-18-2012, 03:17 AM

There may be a textual issue as to whether the original was XII or XV see The Chronology..of Jesus claiming that Kroymann in his critical edition showed that XV is to be preferred.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena · 02-18-2012, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

After all, or, if you like, before all, since you (Marcion) have said that he has a creation of his own, and his own world, and his own sky; we shall see, indeed, about that third heaven, when we come to discuss even your own apostle. Meanwhile, whatever is the (created) substance, it ought at any rate to have made its appearance in company with its own god. But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar,

Stephan, if scholars today have problems trying to work out the contradictions between the gospels re the birth and death of JC - should we not think that those earlier writers had similar problems?

Look what Irenaeus did with gJohn and it's not yet 50 years for JC, adding that onto gLuke's about 30 years, in the 15th year of Tiberius, backdating that to around 1 b.c. and Bob's your uncle - we now have JC crucified in the time of Claudius. (conveniently forgetting that gLuke also contradicts himself with a birth narrative in 6 c.e. - thereby putting the JC crucifixion, linked up with gJohn, at the very end of the rule of Claudius - or even just past that rule....).

And Tertullian and that 12th year of Tiberius, around 26 c.e. Probably decided to go with gMatthew and a birth narrative prior to the death of Herod the Great. If that is dated to around 4 b.c., and using gLuke's about 30 years (or simply going with a 30 year age for a Jewish preacher guy to start doing the rounds) - Bob's your uncle - and we have the 12th year of Tiberius (around 26 c.e.) for JC to start his ministry.

And really, are today's NT scholars any better? Trying to work out how the gLuke and gMatthew birth narratives can be harmonized is an ongoing scholarly pastime....

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There may be a textual issue as to whether the original was XII or XV see The Chronology..of Jesus claiming that Kroymann in his critical edition showed that XV is to be preferred.

Andrew Criddle

It is a real waste of time trying to use the Bible to determine when a fictitious event occured.

It is like using Plutarch's "Romulus" to determine the date when Romulus died.

Steve Weiss · 02-18-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There may be a textual issue as to whether the original was XII or XV see The Chronology..of Jesus claiming that Kroymann in his critical edition showed that XV is to be preferred.

Andrew Criddle

It is a real waste of time trying to use the Bible to determine when a fictitious event occured.

It is like using Plutarch's "Romulus" to determine the date when Romulus died.

+1 quite right!

maryhelena · 02-18-2012, 09:29 AM

Further to my last post - another idea re that 12th year of Tiberius, around 26 c.e.
If Tertullian is working on some argument against Marcion that involves dating the start of the JC ministry - and Marcion is using gLuke, from 3:1 and the 15th year of Tiberius, then to counter that argument, Tertullian would not be able to refer to the reference re JC being about 30 years old (it’s possibly a later addition anyway that Marcion has rejected re his version of gLuke). So, what to do to place JC earlier than Marcion’s phantom that ‘came down’ to Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius? In other words, how to date JC without gLuke.

Using the death of Herod the Great in 4 b.c. (as I did in my earlier post) and adding on gLuke’s about 30 years, gets one to the 12th year of Tiberius. But that requires that Tertullian either use gLuke’s about 30 years or else just use conjecture to reach that 12th year of Tiberius in 26 c.e.

Perhaps there is another way: Perhaps Tertullian used gJohn’s not yet 50 years old for his JC in that 12th year of Tiberius. That would bring his argument right back to the 15th year of Herod the Great. The year by which the nativity story in Slavonic Josephus has placed the birth of an anointed one. OK, that’s working backwards. But maybe Tertullian simply knew the nativity story that is now within Slavonic Josephus - a nativity story that, along with gJohn, gives him his 12th year of Tiberius, about 26 c.e. for the ministry of his JC. And he has given Marcion’s phantom the boot.....................

Slavonic Josephus	Gospel of John	Gospel of Matthew	Tertullian
Herod said: "How can we discover him? And Levi said: Send throughout the whole of Judaea (asking) how many male infants have been born since the Persians saw the star right up to the present day, kill them all, and that (child) will also be killed. And your kingdom will be secure for you and your sons and even for your great-grandsons.		After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem. Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.	But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar, (about 26 c.e).
Later, they rose and told him: "Listen to your servants, so that the Most High may favour you. It is written that the Anointed One is (to be) born in Bethlehem. Even if you have no mercy on your servants, kill those infants of Bethlehem and let the others go". And he gave the order and they killed all the infants in Bethlehem.		When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.
In the fifteenth year of his regin he (he) rebuilt the temple and renovated its walls. Enclosing double the ground and spending wealth untold. Emblellishing it with beauties ineffable.
Herod the Great, siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. The 15th year would be around 23/22 b.c.	You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”		About 26 c.e. = 48/49 years from the 15th year of Herod the Great in 23/22 b.c.
		ADDITION TO gMATTHEW THAT BREAKS THE LINK TO THE 15TH YEAR OF HEROD THE GREAT by having JC a "child" at the time of Archelaus: After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.

Keep in mind that Eusebius tells of a JC crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, around 21 c.e. - so, its playtime for all those wanting to pin down JC via all the possible numbering systems....:constern01:

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 10:03 AM

I think all of the catholic sources agreed that jesus was crucified in the 15th year. the gospel of john seems to be reconciling a 1 year ministry with the Marcionite gospel by suggesting a three year ministry.

Irenaeus represent something subsequent to that

maryhelena · 02-18-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think all of the catholic sources agreed that jesus was crucified in the 15th year. the gospel of john seems to be reconciling a 1 year ministry with the Marcionite gospel by making a career ministry

I don't think that Tertullian says that JC was crucified in the 12th year of Tiberius - unless you have a quote. It's only the start of the JC ministry at 26 c.e. From there to the 15th year of Tiberius is 3 years - the ministry according to gJohn. So - that would make JC, over the 50 years at crucifixion. No big deal! The point seems to be, by Tertullian, that JC did not 'come down' to Capernanum in the 15th year of Tiberius as Marcion is maintaining. JC has a history going back when......

Quote:

Irenaeus represent something subsequent to that

Yes, Irenaeus is taking those not yet 50 years of gJohn forward - Tertullian is taking those not yet 50 years backwards.....

stephan huller · 02-18-2012, 10:21 AM

The Acts of Pilate says that Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year. The heretics seem to have argued for a one year ministry (Irenaeus AH 2.22). This makes sense given the fact - as Irenaeus notes here - they connected the concept of 'gospel' (= besorah) to the 'year of favor' (Isa 61:2). In other words, Jesus's ministry was conceived as god appearing in the year leading up to the Jubilee year (note Luke 4:9 still retains Jesus announcing Isa 61:2 AND the specific year of his 'coming down'). The multi-year ministry develops only from John. Which means it:

a) is only attached to a united synoptic tradition on 'one end' (i.e. at the beginning or end) and then works forward or backward from that point (i.e. three years back from the crucifixion or three years forward from the annunciation

or

b) there were two single year traditions (the 12th and the 15th) and John is attached to the beginning of one and the end of the other.

In traditional Israelite culture the Jubilee is declared on the Day of Atonement of the 49th year, announced in all countries over a period of just under six months (six months less nine days, because the Day of Atonement is on the 10th of the 7th of year 49), and then it runs from the first to the last day of year 50, which is also year 1 of the next seven years.

The Arabic bashîrah means annunciation, and is the normal Arabic word for Gospel. It is obviously the equivalent of the Hebrew bassorah (or besorah). Mubashshir (= Hebrew mevasser) means the person that carries a message; it also means Evangelist. Bashîr is a title applied to John the Baptist. It means herald.

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

02-18-2012, 03:17 AM	#3
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	There may be a textual issue as to whether the original was XII or XV see The Chronology..of Jesus claiming that Kroymann in his critical edition showed that XV is to be preferred. Andrew Criddle

02-18-2012, 10:03 AM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think all of the catholic sources agreed that jesus was crucified in the 15th year. the gospel of john seems to be reconciling a 1 year ministry with the Marcionite gospel by suggesting a three year ministry. Irenaeus represent something subsequent to that

02-18-2012, 10:21 AM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The Acts of Pilate says that Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year. The heretics seem to have argued for a one year ministry (Irenaeus AH 2.22). This makes sense given the fact - as Irenaeus notes here - they connected the concept of 'gospel' (= besorah) to the 'year of favor' (Isa 61:2). In other words, Jesus's ministry was conceived as god appearing in the year leading up to the Jubilee year (note Luke 4:9 still retains Jesus announcing Isa 61:2 AND the specific year of his 'coming down'). The multi-year ministry develops only from John. Which means it: a) is only attached to a united synoptic tradition on 'one end' (i.e. at the beginning or end) and then works forward or backward from that point (i.e. three years back from the crucifixion or three years forward from the annunciation or b) there were two single year traditions (the 12th and the 15th) and John is attached to the beginning of one and the end of the other. In traditional Israelite culture the Jubilee is declared on the Day of Atonement of the 49th year, announced in all countries over a period of just under six months (six months less nine days, because the Day of Atonement is on the 10th of the 7th of year 49), and then it runs from the first to the last day of year 50, which is also year 1 of the next seven years. The Arabic bashîrah means annunciation, and is the normal Arabic word for Gospel. It is obviously the equivalent of the Hebrew bassorah (or besorah). Mubashshir (= Hebrew mevasser) means the person that carries a message; it also means Evangelist. Bashîr is a title applied to John the Baptist. It means herald.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.