maryhelena

OK - you know my position on the gospel JC story - i.e. that gospel JC figure is not historical. So? Don't waste my time in that connection. I'm not interested in Ghost stories....

And as for the Essenes and Josephus - that issue is not the subject of the OP.

Duvduv

And then if at the time of the writer said to be Epiphanius in the 4th century the nativity stories had not yet been incorporated into their gospels, and if Josephus' stories about the Herodian dynasty were not available to Epiphanius? And where were the alleged earlier writings of heresiologists including Justin which Epiphanius doesn't reference??!

maryhelena

.... 'if'..........

We have what we have. Epiphanius and the Toledot Yeshu story. One story deemed to be Jewish and the other story from a Christian. Epiphanius makes reference to Herod. Thus linking the Jewish and the gospel Christian stories. While a JC historicist perspective would rule this linkage out of hand - the JC ahistoricist position allows this Epiphanius linkage to be put on the table. Put on the table as something that needs to be seriously questioned. It's there - what we do with it is up to us - but to rule it out of play could be, to my thinking, a big mistake.

Duvduv

Every indication is that he was part of the Byzantian Establishment in Constantinople and yet ignored referring to his canonical Scriptures when discussing the life of his HJ?
And no reference to information found in Josephus?
It isn't the style of the apologists to ignore their Scriptures.
Unless the Gospels were not yet canonical and Josephus wasn't yet widely known. Why does he not indicate the source of his historical claims? Especially if he could mention two of his holy gospels that were canonical allegedly for 200 years?!
The overall context is problematic. Why doesn't he cite Justin either?

maryhelena

Why? Motive unknown.......

Why did gLuke place the birth of his JC in the time of the census of Quirinius? Why did gMatthew have his JC born in the time of Herod? Why do Epiphanius and the Toledot Yeshu have a birth date in the time of Alexander Jannaeus?

The simple answer is surely that we are not, with the gospel JC figure, dealing with a historical figure but with a composite or symbolic JC figure. Such a figure allows for various historical sources to be used in the creation of that symbolic, literary, figure. (and, of course, mythological elements as well). That is why the Toledot Yeshu story, and the Epiphanius story, have relevance. They widen the field of research into the background from which that gospel JC story has sprung.

Duvduv

That's true, but the official texts were allegedly CANONICAL by the mid 4th century, in which case Epiphanius would have considered them as important as any of the heresiologists such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. etc.

And yet in this regard, none of these plays any role in his determination of the birth of his Savior. And as an official leader of the regime religion he should have invoked them here UNLESS they did not exist in the 4th century as holy writ for the past 200 years as alleged by official dogma.

maryhelena

Epiphanius knows the gospel story of a birth under Herod and a death under Pilate - and he still makes reference to a birth of a Christ figure during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. A bit like gLuke - if that writer knows the storyline in gMatthew. Changed the date of the nativity of the Christ figure does not seem to have been an issue back then.....not forgetting Slavonic Josephus and a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great.

It's the JC historicists that have problems with these multiple birth narratives for a Christ figure - the ahistoricsts should be putting out the welcome mat....

Duvduv

Maryhelena and anyone else, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but beyond speculation, it is worthwhile considering why in fact Epiphanius did not invoke any information at all that he would have had from the gospels or Josephus in this matter of the birth of his HJ as a historian/apologist/heresiologist, etc.

Unless it can be demonstrated for some unusual reason that this writer called Epiphanius totally ignored his biblical sources in discussing biblical history. I haven't found any sources so far that discuss this.

maryhelena

Just to repeat a point from my last post:

"Epiphanius knows the gospel story of a birth under Herod and a death under Pilate - and he still makes reference to a birth of a Christ figure during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. "

Duvduv

Here is a link to the Panarion where Epiphanius refers to Herod the son of Antipater. In section 2 he correctly identifies the Herodians, and contradicts the way it is explained in section 3 unless the text has been misunderstood.
In section 8 he mentions the genealogy found in Matthew, and mentions Luke. However he adds details not found elsewhere.
http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
Of course we see in this document the emphasis on dogmatic teaching to establish the official orthodox line against any possible "heretics" which was fitting for the 4th and 5th centuries of the Byzantian regime.