aa5874

I asked you to provide the date or timeline for the START of the SOJOURN in gJohn and all you say is "NONSENSE-do the sums".

Well, I summed what you wrote and it is indeed NONSENSE.

Please, do you have anything else to sum up?

I will have to move on to the claims of Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" and show that his assertions about the age of Jesus in the Gospels summed up to NOTHING but NONSENSE.

aa5874

Before I move on to Irenaeus I would just like to SHOW that in gJohn Jesus claimed that he was BEFORE Abraham.

gJohn's storyline EXTENDS beyond 50 fifty years

John 8

mountainman

Hey Joe,

I have not checked this reference yet but wandering around I stumbled over the statement that

I voted 15 billion, which is one of the figures bandied about for the Big Bang on the basis that Jesus must have got in on the ground floor for the inventiveness of nature and all its creatures.

Best wishes,


Pete

JoeWallack

Hi Pete. Good one. Your excerpt is unconfirmed at this point but it does look like Victorinus thought Jesus was 50 based on "John":

Writings of Victorinus. On the Creation of the World

It makes sense that the orthodox Irenaeus/Victorinus would support an older Jesus since their main Christian opponent would have been Docetic and short Jesus career (like "Mark") supports Docetic and long Jesus career supports Human. It could be that the Long Jesus theory of Irenaeus/Victorinus was the dominant orthodox theory of their time which was suppressed by subsequent Christianity. Even now, how would anyone here know of Victorinus' position on the issue without this Thread?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

Your claim does NOT make much sense. In the very "Against Heresies" it was HERETICAL to teach that Jesus was an ordinary man.

And even the supposed Irenaeus contradict your assertion about gMark. gMark does NOT support Docetism in "Against Heresies".

"Against Heresies" 3

JoeWallack

JW:
In addition to Victorinus we also have the evil and wicked Patristic Theodore of Mopsuestia as follows:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-116

JW:
Compared to Victorinus this is toned down evidence that Theodore thought Jesus was old when he died but the English "reached full age" implies this. Need to look at the original language.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
This one's a somewhat nebulous association but as that great 20th, 21st, and 19th century philosopher Doc said, "I just figured, whatthehell!".

From the site of Ben Smith (perhaps the best scholarship of any Christian who has ever graced FRDB):

Philip of Side (emphasis mine saith the brother of the Lord)

My interest here is the latter, as Raymond Brown would say, "fantastic", claim:

Christian apologists assume that PoS (Philip of Side) is mistaken here about Hadrian since Hadrian reigned 117-138:

Hadrian

and Apologists hate to arrive late for the Last Supper. Sadly, the aforementioned Smith lowers himself from the lofty standards of this Forum and goes with the Apologist spew, ur, flow. The related Apologist thinking is that if PoS is quoting Papias' "they lived until Hadrian" this sounds like Papias wrote after Hadrian (138) (MM and aa look out!) and this just can not be because it is dating evidence which goes against their dating conclusion. It's possible though that PoS is not quoting Papias here, just summarizing that Papias indicated they lived until Hadrian (117).

Apologists have traditionally taken the offending verses of Papias above primarily as evidence of the fantastic but I believe that Papias' primary motivation was to provide supposed historical witness to Jesus. In the offending verse:

I have faith that Papias' emphasis here is not the supposed miracle of an extended life due to being resurrected by Jesus but the value of supposed historical witness to being resurrected that was close to Papias.

The nebulous associations here supporting that per "John" Jesus was fiftyish:

1) Patristics associate Papias with "John".

2) Papias wrote that people resurrected by Jesus lived until Hadrian (117).

3) Mathematically, if someone was 20 when they were resurrected and lived until 90, if they died c 120 than they were resurrected c 50.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

maryhelena

The options re gJohn's 'not yet 50' are:

1) Counting those 50 years (for argument using the round number) from the Slavonic Josephus birth narrative of around 25 b.c. (the 15th year of Herod the Great) and arriving at around 25 c.e. Eusebius writing about a crucifixion/passion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e. The wonder-doer being around 46/47 years old.

2) Counting from a 4 b.c. date (given as the death of Herod the Great) and the gospel JC is around 50 years old in 46 c.e.

3) Counting from 6 c.e. and Quirinius, the gospel JC is about 50 years old in 56 c.e.

Number 1) has a death in the time of Tiberius. Number 2) and 3) have a death in the time of Claudius (41 - 54 c.e.)

All these death dates involve Pilate. Dating Pilate is problematic re Josephus. Number 1) can have Pilate dated to 19 c.e. Numbers 2) and 3) need Pilate dated to the time of Claudius - giving Pilate a dating from 19 c.e. to the end of the rule of Claudius in 54 c.e. around 35 year rule for Pilate. Enough here to give any JC historicist one big headache...

Tactius has Pilate as a procurator - thus placing Pilate in the time of Claudius. (Yes, I know, Richard Carrier has Pilate being Prefect and Procurator at the same time...)Whatever the actual history re Pilate - it seems that, for some reason, for some people, the JC storyboard did not end in the time of Tiberius.

Three birth narratives do not relate to a flesh and blood, historical, gospel JC. They relate rather to a developing story that is taking it's cue from Jewish history. As history goes - so goes it's pseudo-historical reflection. It's prophetic or salvation interpretation.

What we have is a historical backdrop - from the time of Herod the Great to the time of Claudius. It's that history that the JC ahistoricists should be keen to put on the table. It's a history that involves the deaths of two Kings of Judea. Antigonus, who was executed, bound to a cross (re Cassius Dio) in 37 b.c. Agrippa 1, the King to which Josephus has applied messianic ideas, died in 44 c.e.

So, yes, people who were eyewitnesses to the relevant Hasmonean and Jewish history during the rule of Claudius - could easily still be alive until the time of Hadrian.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It seems to me that our problem is that we have a number of sources that all unreliable. We should not pretend that one is more reliable than another.

Let us examine Luke, Josephus, Irenaeus, and Eusebius (or a Eusebean source that Eusebius used)

The only gospel that gives us a date linking Pilate and Tiberius is Luke. The problem is the contradiction of Irenaeus with Luke and Josephus. He places Pilate under Claudius. How can we resolve this puzzle?

1. Luke wrote the connection, Josephus copied it from Luke or an independent source. Irenaeus did not know the relevant section of Luke. Eusebius got his information from Luke and Josephus.

2. Josephus gave the information and Luke copied it. Irenaeus did not see it and Eusebius got his infomation from Luke and Josephus.

3. Luke wrote it. It was not in Josephus. Irenaeus did not see it in Luke. Eusebius placed it in Josephus to support Luke.

4. Josephus wrote it. It was not in Luke. Irenaeus did not see it in Luke. Eusebius placed it in Luke to make Luke historical.

5. It was not in Luke or Josephus. Irenaeus did not see it. Eusebius placed it in both Luke and Josephus.

All five are possible. The last two seem the best hypotheses because they explain why Irenaeus did not see it in Luke. Either it was not in Luke at the time he wrote (circa 200) and Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Josephus or it was not in either Luke or Josephus and that is why Irenaeus missed it. Eusebius placed it in both.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

he wasnt 50 yet


and how would a johaninne community of romans even know how old a jew was up to 70 years earlier?