maryhelena

Actually, it does not help his, Irenaeus, point at all. His interpretation of gJohn and it's 'not yet fifty years old' as meaning something along the lines of ages of man, is nonsensical. An interpretation that is anyway contradicted by his reference to Pontius Pilate being governor under Claudius. What Irenaeus has done is add around 20 years to gLuke's 'about 30 years' in the 15th year of Tiberius (29/30 c.e.) - which takes one to around 50 c.e. (Claudius ruling from 41 - 54 c.e.). There is no way to use gMatthew for a definitive date for the birth of JC - JC being born sometime prior to the death of Herod the Great. gLuke deciding on the census of 6.c.e. (Quirinius governor of Syria) - which does not make JC about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius. All in all one big mix up for a historical gospel JC.

Actually, an earlier crucifixion storyline in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e. works better with gJohn and his 'not yet fifty years old'. That would make JC born sometime around the 15th year of Herod the Great in 25 b.c. (The Slavonic Josephus storyline). It being possible to argue that Pilate started his rule from 19 c.e.

The point I tried to make is that this 'not yet 50 years old' from gJohn works better with working backwards rather than forwards - which is what Irenaeus has done and landing himself in deep water re dating Pilate. (Pilate would be a procurator under Claudius not a prefect - unless of course Pilate got another term in Judea....). This is a better method, working backwards, with gJohn, than working forward. It is when one tries to harmonize all the conflicting gospel details that one runs the risk of losing the plot....much better to let the conflicting details tell their own story...

Working backwards from 21 ce and the crucifixion storyline in the 7th year of Tiberius, has more to offer than attempting one big harmonizing story to support the assumed historical gospel JC. And remember, there was a time before gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius - one needs to put gLuke on the shelve for a while in order to get the earlier storyline/picture. ie the first draft and the final draft, gLuke, are, as in any storyline, not necessarily following a logical plot line - twists and turns, surprises and mystery are part of the storytellers creative tools...

That's all gospel storyline of course. My mention of Antigonus was to bring some history into the discussion re the age of Antigonus when he was put to death. (As I think that the history of Antigonus has been used by the gospel writers as a model for the crucifixion element in their JC story).

stephan huller

Actually that's the problem with the Gospel of John. Irenaeus's interpretation isn't all that crazy if you don't know the synoptics claim a year long narrative for Jesus's ministry. Why for instance do the Jews say that he is 'not yet fifty years old'? Why are there multiple visits to Jerusalem?

The Gospel of John was not written with the same tradition in mind as the synoptics. It clearly develops from a different understanding of Jesus.

aa5874

According to Eusebius, the Gospel of John records the EARLIER events of Jesus BEFORE John the Baptist was imprisonned.

"Church History" 3.24 Eusebius has DESTROYED Irenaeus' claims about gJohn. The Christian writers are NOT credible.

maryhelena

Irenaeus has referenced gLuke and it's about 30 years - and added on the extra 20 years to make JC around 50, as in gJohn. Thus, he has not sought to differentiate a different understanding of Jesus in gJohn from the synoptics. His attempt at an interpretation, or understanding of gJohn's 'not yet fifty years old', is bizarre - unless, of course, you have some info re Pilate being in office in Judea during the time of Claudius....

I've nothing against a JC crucifixion story set in 21 c.e. or 30/33 c.e. or during the time of Claudius (41 - 54 c.e.) - but I'm an ahistoricist/mythicist - and don't have to make bizarre attempts to harmonize all the contradictory gospel stories about JC in order to support an assumed historical gospel JC.

stephan huller

Mary Helena

The difficulty of course is if Irenaeus had the power to falsify documents as is claimed here in this forum, why does the Gospel of John have a multiple year ministry for Jesus and the synoptics just one? Why try and force a fifty year Jesus onto a 'one year' synoptic tradition that implies he was thirty? Clearly Irenaeus was being limited by pre-existing traditions and evidence.

maryhelena

Stephan

Why indeed? The only answer can be that Irenaeus was trying to reconcile, harmonize, the synoptic JC story with the gJohn JC story. And modern day JC historicists? Seems to me that they don’t bother even trying to reconcile the ‘fifty years old’ with gLuke at all. It’s just a little nuisance point that they are more than happy to turn a blind eye too - and anyway, it can’t be done re the dating for Pilate.

The one year synoptic ministry verse the three year ministry of gJohn? Either gJohn elaborated his JC storyline from an earlier synoptic JC storyline - or the synoptic storyline has condensed an earlier gJohn 3 year ministry into just one year. Take your pick and see how far one can run with it....

So, a JC not yet 50 years is crucified sometime during Pilate’s time in Judea - anytime between 19 c.e. and 36 c.e. (dating in Josephus being ambiguous). That’s gJohn’s storyline. Thus, the JC in gJohn is born anytime from 31 b.c. to 14 b.c. (a 17 year period). And we do have Slavonic Josephus with it’s 15th year of Herod the Great birth narrative, ie 25 b.c. And we do have Eusebius and his mention of a crucifixion story set in the 7th year of Tiberius in 21 b.c. In other words, the gJohn JC storyline is referencing an earlier than gLuke crucifixion storyline re JC.

As I said earlier - put gLuke on the shelve for a while. Things can look very different without that 15th year of Tiberius. gLuke is the update, the new developments in the JC mythological/symbolic storyboard - have a look at the second chart is this post:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6859259

And as for history and that ‘not yet fifty years’ of gJohn - then it looks to be that gJohn is using the life of Antigonus as his historical model for his crucifixion story. gJohn is retelling, interpreting, spiritualizing, philosophizing, on the historical reality of the death of Antigonus as the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Albeit in the retelling the new story gets set in the time of Pilate...(I sometimes think that one needs to read 'Herodians' for 'Jews' in gJohn - might make more sense..)

And what has gLuke done with his JC being about 30 years old and crucified around the 15th year of Tiberius? He has cancelled, negated, the gJohn ‘not yet fifty years old’ - a gJohn position that can be viewed as a link to Antigonus as gJohn’s historical model for his JC.

It makes no sense to have gJohn contradict gLuke re the age of JC when crucified. It does make sense for gLuke, in his own gospel, to negate, cancel, gJohn’s ‘not yet fifty years’ if he seeks to put any historical models for JC on the backburner, out of sight. It’s the update that carries the day - unless some stick in the mud old timers dig in their heels because they prefer the old story...

Of course, none of this will make sense to the JC historicists...

aa5874

The pre-existing traditions based on Eusebius is that gJohn contains the EARLY activities of Jesus BEFORE John the Baptist was imprisoned and that the Synoptics contains events AFTER those of gJohn?

"Church History" 3.24
The multiple visits to Jerusalem in gJohn based on Eusebius does NOT change the date of the crucifixion in ALL the Gospels.

And further, in gJohn, Jesus was crucified when Pilate was Governor and Caiaphas was high priest.

Joh 18:24 - "Irenaeus" appears NOT to even know when Caiaphas was high Priest in gJohn.

"Irenaeus" is simply NOT credible.

Solo

FWIW, "synoptics" as a label is misleading. Matthew and Luke are redactions of, and theological counters to, Mark. They transparently preserve the core of the previous versions of the gospel (Mark for Matthew, Mark and Matthew for Luke), as a proselytizing tactic of enhancing and perfecting previous gospel writs, in search of unifying theology. Matthew's tactic was to let the core of Mark stand but stand it on its head, so to speak, by completely reworking plan of the gnostic "access" to Jesus as apostolic endowment in a historical time of Jesus rather than the mysterious, timeless faculty of the spirit which comes as a gift from God. Evidently, the tactic was hugely successful and caused defections of the hard-core Paulines (who embraced Mark) into gnostic schools. Luke appears to have been looking for a formula to stem the "judaization" of Mark by Matt and set the spiritual gnosis and apostolic authority on even footing, or at any rate, into a configuration acceptable to both sides.

The Johannine school evidently had made a radical break with the synoptic schools. Building on the Pauline tradition of theological proclamation, it appears to have been motivated by desire to prevent abductions of the allegorical hypertext by rival schools (something specifically tackled in Jn 10). The apostolic authority is checked and superceded by the mysterious spiritual trinity: John as the first witness, the unnamed "beloved disciple" and "the paraclete" who are present in the church and have the gnosis of Christ as Logos both in the historical timeframe and in the time of the gospel writing. Clearly, John's Christ was not bound by the apostolic tradition, in fact the gospel subordinates it to the triune revealer (by making Peter learn of Christ through Andrew who gets the news from John).

My sense is that Irenaeus largely misread John's purposes, or alternatively, forcibly refitted them for his agenda favouring the monopoly of apostolic tradition. In my (admittedly esoteric) reading of the gospel, the only John was the baptizer. The identification of the gospel with John (of the Twelve) was made later as a way to harmonize the traditions.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Solo,

I am not so sure that the relationship of John to the synoptics is so simple. Most people ignore the role of the Diatessaron which also posits a multiyear ministry for Jesus. If we assume that the Diatessaron is at least as old as Tatian and gospel harmonies go back to Theophilus (the two texts may be one and the same as Theophilus was bishop of Antioch and Syria seems to be strongly attached to the Diatessaron) the testimony of the Diatessaron is perhaps even older than canonical John (many of the early references to Johannine material might well be Diatessaronic references as 'John' is never explicitly referenced as the author of the material).

When Origen studies the gospel of Matthew he can be demonstrated to have consulted some kind of 'harmony.' Whether or not it was a 'Diatessaron' is difficult to say but the existence of such harmonies adds an extra layer of difficulty to a simple explanation to the multi-year ministry portrayed in our canonical gospel of John

aa5874

We have ZERO evidence for what you claim. The NT Canon is Unreliable, and the sources for the NT Canon are also Unreliable.

Can you Please name an actual gnostic school in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple and name the gnostic school that embraced the anonymous writings now called according to Mark.


"Against Heresies" was supposed to be FIVE books that so-called Heretics should have seen. Heretics should have seen the ARGUMENTS as written and heard the ARGUMENTS when '"Ireneaus" preached.

Any mis-reading of gJohn by "Irenaeus" should have destroyed his own argument against the HERETICS of his time.

"Against Heresies" should have been CIRCULATED among those very Heretics and they should have Picked Apart and EXPOSED "Irenaeus" as one who did NOT even know the age that his OWN Lord and Savior died having claimed PILATE was the Governor under Cladius in "Apostolic Preaching".

It is completely mind-boggling that "Irenaeus" could have been aware of the Synoptics, gJohn, the writings of Justin Martyr, and Josephus yet still TAUGHT and WROTE that PILATE was the Governor during the reign of Cladius.

"Against Heresies" is NOT historically credible.