JoeWallack

JW:
My reading is just fine Ben. "I said that Irenaeus thought Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, procurator under Tiberius." implies that you are stating that Irenaeus thought Jesus died under Tiberius under any circumstances. Especially if the context is dating Jesus' supposed death. That's how they dated back than, per the Emperor.

I will call your statement only misleading if you don't know which emperor Irenaeus said Jesus died under. Do you know?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Finding "misleading" here should not be too difficult.

Following up on Ben I decided to put the quotes together
with some urls for context.

First the unusual and precise Lukan sixfold chronology sychronism

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Then Irenaeus -

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html
http://bennieblount.org/Online/ECF/A...1/anf01-60.htm
Irenaeus - Against Heresies - 3.14.3

...also the baptism of John,
the number of the years of the Lord when he was baptized,
and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book2.html
Irenaues Against Heresies - 2.32.4

in the name of Jesus Christ,
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book1.html
http://bennieblount.org/Online/ECF/A...1/anf01-58.htm
Irenaues Against Heresies -- Book 1 - Chapter XXVII.2 - (1.27.2) -
Doctrines of Cerdo and Marcion.

But Jesus being derived from that father
who is above the God that made the world,
and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor,
who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar

===========================================

Now, back to "misleading".
Note that JW omits all those quotes above in his wiki --
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_3:23
Luke 3:23
so he can base his Irenaeus case on the following.

============================================

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/de...preaching.html
Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate,
the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together
and condemned Him to be crucified.

================================================== ======

So apparently Irenaeus writing about a century and a half after
the events at one point wrote the name of the wrong Caesar,
.. Claudius, instead of Tiberius.

And note that the actual given name of Tiberius Caesar is -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
born Tiberius Claudius Nero

making the confusion rather elementary and inconsequential
unless one is making a case for Irenaeus Unerroneus (inerrancy).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

I quoted Irenaeus, who wrote that Jesus died under Pilate, and that Pilate was procurator under Tiberius; I quoted him so closely that spin raised his eyebrows on the prefect-versus-procurator issue. I showed how Irenaeus cannot be off by more than about 20 years (from age 30 to age 50), which makes it quite unlikely that he thought Jesus died under Trajan, as per the gross misreading of the statement about John.

Fair enough. Play your card.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Steve, for that summary. I was unaware of this interesting line from the Demonstration.

This must be what all the bluster was about.

If Irenaeus knew enough about the early principates to know that a 20 year dominical ministry would put Jesus into the reign of Claudius, but not enough to know that Pilate did not overlap with Claudius, so be it. Or, if Irenaeus simply mixed up the names of the emperors, again so be it.

At any rate, none of this puts Jesus anywhere near Trajan.

Ben.

You know, Joe, all you had to do was cite the reference.

Steven Avery

Most welcome, Ben.

When something like this is discussed (on errancy, or threads, or wherever) it is surprising that you the data isn't first simply put together. That is one excellent aspect of your web site and posts as well .. get the data first, and let the data speak, and then analyze.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith If Irenaeus knew enough about the early principates to know that a 20 year dominical ministry would put Jesus into the reign of Claudius, but not enough to know that Pilate did not overlap with Claudius, so be it. Or, if Irenaeus simply mixed up the names of the emperors, again so be it.

Right, unless one is taking a stance of Irenaeus Unerroneus this was discussed by Shakespeare .. "much ado .. "

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith At any rate, none of this puts Jesus anywhere near Trajan. You know, Joe, all you had to do was cite the reference.

It is possible that JW simply had a very mild Gibsonitis attack.
Hopefully his posting will be fine shortly.

Shalom,
Steven

aa5874

Ben, you're a bit mixed up. I wonder if Irenaeus got Trajan mixed up, too.

Even if you and/or Irenaeus are mixed up?
Ben, I ask you a simply question, in book 2 chapter22 of Against Heresies, what date did Irenaeus give for the death of the old man, Jesus.

Ben C Smith

No date. Just an age. 50.

John, on the other hand, Irenaeus placed under Trajan.

Ben.

aa5874

.

Ben, you and Irenaeus are mixed up!

These stories conjure an image of confusion and fiction.

Are you sure Ben?

aa5874

Serious historians accept, without doubt, what they can verify.

Please verify what 'verify' means, do not accept anything from me unless you can verify it.

aa5874

There have been hundreds of posts trying to refute my assertion that the historicity of Jesus is baseless, without merit.

My assertion is based on these premises:
1. The NT as presented is fundamentally fictitious.
2. There is no known extra-biblical credible information of Jesus in the 1st century.

Here are some of the refutations to my assertion:
1. Jesus may have been a historical figure since there is a fundamental assumption of death.
2. Jesus may have existed since known figures have disappeared.
3. Jesus may have existed if you discard all the supernatural events and accept other events as true.
4. Jesus may have existed because no-one can prove he didn't.
5. Jesus may have existed because many people believe that he did.

I find these refutations to be exremely weak and of little consequence. None could establish that Jesus was born, the actual names of his parents or explain how Jesus, who should have been dead and buried in a sealed tomb under guard, was seen by witnesses eating fish and bread, walking through the walls or roof of a closed building and giving fishing instructions.

The refuters never really addressed the incredibilty of the NT, none could show a single event in the NT, concerning Jesus, that has been established to be true. None explained how is it Jesus was deified, if he was virtually unknown.

After all, the refuters appear only to have faith that Jesus existed based on speculation.