Duvduv

One year might be little, but no reader could get 20 years from those gospels. The so-called Irenaeus was probably taking advantage of the ambiguity. I suppose he makes no mention of Caligula.
Whoever Irenaeus was he was certainly too lazy to check Roman histories since the author probably wanted to keep everything within the family at that time.
Where is Caligula when you need him most?
It's also possible the writer knew it was all fiction so he figured the details and contradictions were not a big deal.

aa5874

Again, once you read gJohn you will realize that the ministry of the Johanine Jesus covered THREE passovers.

1. First Passover John 2.

2. Second Passover John 6

3. Third Passover John 11.

However, the ministry of the Synoptic Jesus covered ONLY one Passover.

1. One Passover---Mark 14

2. One Passover---Matthew 26

3. One Passover---Luke 22.

Again, Irenaeus could NOT have used gLuke and gJohn to get a ministry of Jesus that covered 20 years.

Clement of Alexandria used gLuke to Prove Jesus died at 30 years of age and Eusebius used gJohn to claim Jesus died in the 18th year of Tiberius.

You argument has imploded.

Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria has shown that Irenaeus could NOT have used gLuke and gJohn.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery.

la70119

Bernard, I saw that. Prior to wroting his Chronicles, he appeared to be arguing that Jesus was crucified in 18 CE!!! And didn't he say, that once he was crucified, the protests, demonstrations, riots and tumults including the ensigns incident and the aqueduct incident began in Judaea and continued until the Great Jewish War? No wonder Josephus seems to indicate a date of 19 CE for the Crucifixion!

Bernard Muller

But that's just what Irenaeus did. Read AH 2.22. last paragraph.

maryhelena

Playing with all the numbers is a wonderful thing!!

And yes, it's very interesting where the TF is placed in Josephus. (setting aside the arguments for and against it...). And to add to that interest - Slavonic Josephus places it's wonder-doer story between the protests over the Roman standards and the water affair.

A 19 c.e. JC crucifixion story has more to do with the Slavonic Josephus story than the story in gLuke. However, keep in mind that gLuke is a late gospel and prior to that gospel the JC crucifixion story could not be dated to the 15th year of Tiberius. Consequently, other stories, other dating, would be possible. The Acts of Pilate has the 7th year of Tiberius. One can take that running to 21 c.e. and have a JC crucifixion in that year. Or, one can try running the numbers from the "co-princeps" of Tiberius in 12 c.e. Just a few years difference but perhaps adds more fuel the fire....

Tiberius

A JC crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, from his 'Co-princeps" in 12 c.e. gives one the 19 c.e. date (more in line with the placing of the TF in Antiquities). Using gJohn and his not yet 50 years - and one has a date of around 30 b.c. for the birth narrative.

Slavonic Josephus places it's birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. This can be either from 40 b.c. or from 37 b.c. No specific date - only prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. So, one can run with the 30 b.c. nativity dating - which is - the interesting part - just 7 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great. And, going back again to the story in Slavonic Josephus, that was the time, during the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. when the priests were taking stock of their situation - and looking to Daniel........

Bottom-line in all of this - one has to put gLuke on the shelve for a while and consider the other gospels that are prior to it. gLuke has recast the JC story into a new time frame. One can wonder and debate what gLuke was endeavoring to accomplish - and one can give those early christian writers a bit of a break. With gLuke adding so many contradictions to an earlier JC story it is little wonder that we, today, have trouble figuring it all out - hence have no rational reason to bring the axe down on those earlier attempts to make some sense of it all.

(obviously, those who uphold the assumption of a historical JC will want to ditch Slavonic Josephus - for the ahistoricist/mythicists - that source is pure gold....)

(google book view available)

--------------------------------------
Re an early dating for Pilate:

Daniel Schwartz has a chapter on Pilate’s appointment in his book:

Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

He did NOT use gLuke and gJohn.

Again, you might as well quote the "TF" to prove Josephus knew of NT Jesus.

Clement of Alexandria used gLuke to PROVE Jesus was about to be 30 years old at Baptism, Preached ONLY one year and died when he was 30 years old in the reign of Tiberius.

The MINISTRY of Jesus only covered ONE Passover in gLuke and THREE Passovers in gJohn. It is NOT possible to get TWENTY years from THREE Passovers and be a Bishop of the Church.

Against Heresies is a Massive forgery.

Bernard Muller

Irenaeus used massively gJohn in AH 2.22 in two passages. One to justify more than one year, the other to justify 20 years.
Also in AH 2.22, he also knew gLuke & "Luke" and quoted the OT verse used in gLuke (4:19) which "heretics", and later Clement of Alexandria in Stromata, used for extrapolating the one year ministry for Jesus. But he rejected it as indicating one year.
These are facts. Too bad if that does not conform with your theory.
GJohn says that Jesus' preaching lasted more than one year, at least two, but nowhere indicates an upper limit.
But I agree with you in what you wrote in your OP:
"Against Heresies" 2.22 is a two-thousand word argument to attempt to show Jesus Christ was about 50 years old when he was crucified."

Duvduv

If "Irenaeus" had access to other writings, all 4 gospels, archives, etc. of history, wouldn't he have been more hesitant to make that assertion of 50 years?
In any case, this manuscript has the number at 40:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Tischendorfianus_III
Then there is the possibility that the author wasn't intending to give an exact age, but that age 50 had some kind of special significance for "the Jews" that Jesus could not have possibility attained because he was so much younger. Logically, does it make sense to suggest that had he reached aged 50 he then WOULD HAVE seen Abraham who died a couple of thousands of years earlier??
Irenaeus evidently did not entertain such options.

aa5874

So, Irenaeus was a Heretic and could NOT have been a Bishop of the Church.

In "Against Heresies" 2.22, incredibly, the Heretics were arguing that Jesus suffered at 30 years of age which is EXACTLY the same statement made by Clement of Alexandria.


"Against Heresies" 2.22 And now in the same chapter the writer CONTRADICTS himself and claims Jesus was indeed 30 years old at Baptism.

"Against Heresies" 2.22This is PRECISELY how we know Against Heresies is a MASSIVE forgery. The argument is completely IDIOTIC, and ABSURD that Jesus suffered at about 50 years old and could NOT have been made by a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church.

Irenaeus was an HERETIC and his writings were massively Manipulated to give the false impression that he was aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The fundamental signs of forgeries are contradictory statements.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv:
My thoughts on 8:57 "Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Most people then died before they reached 50. So "you are not 50" means, you are not dead yet. And after you are dead (as a good Jew), you are suppose to see Abraham (see the parable of Lazarus in gLuke).
I think 8:57 was written after "John" had learned about gLuke. There are many clues in gJohn that at first, he knew only of gMark, then he knew also of gLuke.
Explanations here: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
I do not know if "the bosom of Abraham" was part of Jewish traditions then or before, or that "Luke" invented the whole thing.
I do not think Irenaeus was much into secular history because he made errors on this matter. Did he have access to secular archives? That's not certain. Was he interested in secular archives? Probably not.
As far as Abraham still alive in heaven, well gMark, that "Luke" and "John" knew about, had Moses and Elijah alive in Jesus' times. And Lk13:28 implies that Abraham was kept alive in heaven. More, one or two generations earlier, Philo of Alexandria, had Moses and Abraham saved as souls in heaven.