maryhelena

Stephan, while all this playing with numbers has some relevance in tracing the developing JC storyboard - it has nothing to do with a historical JC. That position, an assumed historical gospel JC, of whatever format, is pure nonsense. So, what, historically, can one make of the gospel numbers running to the reign of Claudius?

The historical detail - yes I know..... - is that is was during the rule of Claudius that Agrippa I died. If you remember, I have posted some time back, re my theory that Agrippa I is Philip the Tetrarch - and that Philip is the historical model for the element of the JC character that deals with a 'man of peace'. JC being a composite character. (The other element, the man of war, Antigonus, was tied to a stake/cross, scourged and slain in 37 b.c.). Philip lived, and ruled, for a very long time. If one works from 4 b.c. - then Philip, as Agrippa I, ruled for 48/49 years. Agrippa I died around 44 c.e.

On the one hand we have history - and on the other hand we have that history mythologized in the gospel JC storyboard. Until such time as history faded way into the back of people's memories and the gospel mythological, or symbolic story, became viewed as history, there would be a time when a mix up scenario was doing the rounds - in people's minds. Yes, the Josephan picture of Agrippa I is not above question. However, Josephus has drawn a picture with messianic overtones - a picture that perhaps should be considered carefully. The time of Claudius - a meeting place between the Josephan messianic picture of Agrippa I - and an interpretation of the gospel's dating system that puts JC living at the same time...............:constern01:

stephan huller

Another spin off of the restored dating is that it helps explain why the orthodox developed that stupid story of Jesus being rescued from the slaughter of the innocent or as Friedlander put it (in terms of criticism of the fifteenth year):

http://books.google.com/books?id=hLj...rty%22&f=false

maryhelena

Stephan, Stephan - there is no way the gospel dating can be harmonized to produce one historical figure. No way. One can take ones choice, gMatthew or gLuke - one can cherry-pick and configure a JC of ones own imagination. Or one can face the perhaps brutal fact, for many people, that the gospel dating structure is not about the life of an historical JC but about the real history that is being referenced by these different dates. History that runs from the time of Herod the Great, 40 or 37 b.c. to the time of Claudius, 41 to 54 c.e. Over 90 years of history.

stephan huller

You people are so fixated on disproving Jesus that you avoid seeing the bigger picture. Good lying develops according to what is likely, what will be easily believed. One COULD develop a story of the slaughter of the innocents during the reign of Herod IF Jesus was understood to have been 30 in 26 CE. This is important. It is another line of proof that the twelfth year was in the text or at least that the fifteenth year wasn't original.

maryhelena

Stephan, there is no 'restored dating' here. Christian apologists have long worked on harmonizing gMatthew and gLuke. One way, for the 30 year old scenario, is to have Herod the Great dead at 1 b.c. - using the idea of a co-regency towards the end of Herod's life. But even that must reject the 6 c .e. dating of gLuke - who has contradicted himself.....

stephan huller

I have no interest in the canonical gospels other than determining how they developed from older more original material.

maryhelena

Come now Stephan - the slaughter of the innocents, historically, took place at the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great in 37 b.c.

"Fixated" on disproving Jesus :banghead:

Actually, I'm not "fixated" on that at all. That's a subject matter I dealt with, to my satisfaction, more than 30 years ago. I now never give it a thought at all - far more interesting things to think about once that roadblock has been moved out of the way. It's early christian origins that interests me. And that requires that I consider Jewish history.

stephan huller

So you actually think you are engaging in "objective research"? Give me a break. The real question is - if you found evidence that contradicted your thesis - what would you do with it? Would you even recognize it? The answer - no. It's all about starting with an assumption and ending with evidence to support that belief.

maryhelena

Just for the record. The siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great in 37 b.c. The root of the 'slaughter of innocents' gospel storyline.

stephan huller

But that's not the point. Rational people only lie about what they think is rational, possible, believable. No one in antiquity would set out to develop an implausible narrative. The guy didn't know his lie would work so he has to do his best to make it real.

The closest analogy I can come up with is closing a sale. You are trying to set a price for your services. You don't start off with something unreasonable. Don't you get this?