Bernard Muller

to aa,
Neither the gospels, nor 'Acts' say that Jesus was crucified during Tiberius' reign. 'Acts' does not say Pentecost happened during Tiberius' reign.
Only gLuke mentions Tiberius, when John the Baptist appears on the scene.
30, 40, 50 days? Does that matter?

You make it sound the dating is indicated in 'Acts' or the Pauline epistles. It is not.

What Irenaeus preached is likely as he wrote in his "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching". In it he had Claudius substituted to Tiberius. I do not think that would cause a commotion among Christians, who, in large, would not be concerned (or aware) about history.
Did some orthodox Christians dare to say to a revered bishop, whose works against heretics were greatly beneficial to them, he made a mistake? Hardly so. And if these heretics were making noise about it, they would not be listened to, but rather damned.

Irenaeus is proved to be out of line on one point, trying to extend the duration of Jesus' ministry (which would have been beneficial for orthodox Christianity if accepted and not incorrect).
Not exactly a heresy as such, just a pious lie/error.

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

Hi aa5874,

You seem to accept the writings of Justin Martyr as authentic. Why?

Jake

aa5874

Neither the Gospels nor Acts say Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius.

The Gospels say Jesus was crucified when Pilate was Governor, Caiaphas was High Priest and Herod was tetrarch AFTER being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Ireaneus himself, the Church of Lyons and the Heretics did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters do not state Jesus was crucified under Claudius or at about 50 years of age.

Again, Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified when Pilate was procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius even without Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Irenaeus claimed to be aware of Justin Martyr.

You make it sound as if Apologetics before Irenaeus did not claim Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

"Against Heresies" is a work supposedly Against the Heretics and it was unlikely that the Heretics would revere Irenaeus if he blatantly lied that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man under Claudius when they all had the 4 Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters and the Apocalypse of John.

The Heretics would have been extremely delighted to ridicule Irenaeus as a Liar and fiction writer.

You statement is completely erroneous. No Apologetic writer of the Church claimed or admitted it was beneficial for orthodoxy that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after being about 30 years at baptism during the 15th year of Tiberius.

In fact, in the Stromata it is claimed, contrary to "Against Heresies", that Jesus preached ONLY for one year and was crucified in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Clement's Stromata Also, when "Church History" was composed there was NO claim at all that Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

The author who wrote "Against Heresies" 2.22 was an Heretic and did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters where Paul was a Persecutor and preached Christ Crucified since about c 37 CE.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery carried out no earlier than c 400 CE or After the writing of Augustine of Hippo.

aa5874

The copies of writings attributed to Justin Martyr are fundamentally CORROBORATED by Apologetics, Non-Apologetics, Scholars, and the Recovered Dated Manuscripts.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Are you talking about the whole of "Against Heresies" or parts of it?
For the second option, what would have been added?
How do you explain that the passage about Jesus reaching 50 years old in AH and "Claudius" in "Demonstration ..." were not deleted then?

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

Justin is known from a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus Graecus 450) which dates to 1364.
Which dated manuscripts do you trust?
Which apologetic sources do you trust?
Which Scholars do you trust. Names please.

Jake

stephan huller

he only trusts Justin (absurdly)

tanya

But, one must protest. Yes, it is absurd to rely upon a single, 14th century manuscript from an Italian monastery.

So, then, why do you trust the manuscript evidence attributed to Tacitus? (also based on a single, middle ages, Italian monastery copied manuscript).

Why do you trust the manuscript evidence of Clement of Alexandria? How many Muslim scribes recopied his papyrus?

Do you have any reason to believe that the texts attributed to Irenaeus are legitimate? Do you have even ONE document from him, written in Greek?

Could there be anything more fake than the FIFTH century, "Cologne Codex" attributed to Mani, with obvious, preposterous, Christian nonsense embedded in it, written not in Syriac, nor in middle Persian, but in Greek?

What about Clement of Rome, and his epistle?

Or Polycarp, holy cow. Supposedly the apprentice of John the apostle, but writing in the second century, born in 69 CE ?????? Do the arithmetic.

The "patristic manuscripts" are a shambles. None of them seem honest, reliable, accurately transcribed, or historical, in any way. By comparison, Justin Martyr's manuscript, at least, cites passages from known Hebrew texts, translated into Greek, and faithful to the LXX, despite my assertion that the LXX is itself wholly corrupted, when compared to DSS (because Deuteronomy writes "adonai" in LXX, instead of "YHWH", in DSS). I reject, as propaganda, the notion that Jews themselves equated YHWH with a mere human "lord", i.e. "adonai". This is an obvious, malevolent, Christian imposition, on Jews living under Christian rulers, post Constantine.

I think we have been far too lenient in our tolerance of these ancient texts, because they have been written in GREEK, a language which is both the very center of the intellectual revolution of the modern era, and the lingua franca of the "holy land", under the Roman occupation. But, these two reasons are insufficient to make the case, that these texts are genuine. I believe that ALL of our extant copies have been corrupted. Until that happy day when we discover a hidden treasure, documents buried 2000 years ago, unearthed only yesterday, then, and only then, will we have something like a believable text.

Until then, however, please don't criticise aa5874, for relying exclusively on Justin Martyr. That single document, corrupted as it surely is, still provides 100% more information than we possess about your favorite author: Marcion.

jakejonesiv

Why didn't Paul ever mention the names of the high earthly rulers, or the details or historical circumstances of their reigns? One would expect him to mention Caligula, Claudius, or Nero. This is especially puzzling since wickedness in high places is one of his concerns.

jakejonesiv

Why is aa so critical?