Toto

btw - Dean of Wells refers to Wells Cathedral.

aa5874

If Irenaeus was a BISHOP THEN he would have been PREACHING and TEACHING that Pilate was the procurator of Claudius Caesar LONG BEFORE he wrote his TWO books.

How could such an ERRONEOUS and Heretical Teaching go undetected by the Church?

No other Church writer BEFORE or AFTER Irenaeus preached or teached that Pilate was the governor of Claudius,abs even supposed Heretics claimed Jesus suffered at about 30 years of age.

Irenaeus was a fake BISHOP and no HERETIC read "Against Heresies" and "Apostolic Preaching" where he claimed Pilate was the governor of Pilate writing at around c. 175-180 CE.

Your scenario can only be maintained if Irenaeus was operating in a VACUUM.

Irenaeus claimed that HERETICS were in error so it was imperative that Irenaeus KNOW the times of the governors of Judea during the reign of Tiberius and Claudius.

DCHindley

Another list member passed on a comment he received from the Classics List which indicates that Horace, Epist. 1.3.2, refers to Tiberius Claudius Nero simply as "Claudius". There is another instance (1.3.8) where Tiberius is simply called "Nero". The Classics List source attributes it to metrical reasons, but see below.

[In Epistle 1.3,] Horace assumes the status of cultural patron in a letter addressed to a younger man, or more accurately younger men, as there is admonition for not only the addressee Iulius Florus (1), but also Titius (9) and Celsus (15). All three are members of “the cohors amicorum of Tiberius” (Mayer: 8), and as aspiring poets they reflect Tiberius’ literary interests (Suet. Tib. 70).

also

Mayer states that the description of Tiberius as “Claudius Augusti privignus” (2) “flatters both men” (ad 2). On one level this may be true, but it can also be read as rather forced and intrusive. Similarly, the reference to “res gestas Augusti” (7) seems self-conscious. Given that Trebatius was urging Horace to write patriotic epic some ten years earlier (Serm. 2.1.10-17), there is possibly a playful gibe at Augustus for continued pressure on the poets.

(Above are excerpts from Linda Whybrew's 2006 University of Canterbury Doctoral Thesis THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORACE’S SERMONES AND EPISTULAE BOOK 1: “ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES?”)

In other words, Whybrew is suggesting that Horace was chiding the addressee Iulius not to succumb to pressure from his patron, Tiberius, to write mere propaganda when he was capable of much more. Augustus, a decade earlier, had one of the members of his court urge Horace to do something similar, which Horace resisted.

Now I am not saying that Irenaeus was trying to be so subtle as this. Rather I think he was speaking disrespectfully of Tiberius, who was not remembered fondly by history, for appointing Pilate in the first place, who also did not have such a sterling reputation in history, by suggesting he had not risen to the level appropriate of his adoptive father, Augustus, who was remembered fondly by history. It was akin to someone referring to Nero by his original family name, Ahenobarbus, a name Nero hated for sounding too barbaric, as an intentional put-down. I also believe I recall other cases where either Suetonius and/or Tacitus do similarly with the earlier Julio-Claudian emperors.

DCH

stephan huller

Hi DC the problem is however that the scenario you propose does seem forced on its own. With Irenaeus's over ten year ministry for Jesus starting from the 15th year of Tiberius it just can't work.

BTW I just want to recommend Wynn's Encore property. Exceptional