aa5874

Why would a LATE author be confused about the age of Jesus at crucifixion when he had the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters???

What we have is a massive forgery. Part of the "Against Heresies"2.22 was written BEFORE the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were known or composed.

It was most likely KNOWN and Established in antiquity that Irenaeus had claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old so "Against Heresies" was LATER fraudulently interpolated to give the impression Irenaeus made an error with the governorship of Pilate.

aa5874

You are going to need an affidavit.

Sheshbazzar

There were Christos believing Jews and gentiles -hundreds of years BEFORE- 'Christos Jesu' was allegedly 'born' in the first century.
The mythological beginnings of this legendary messianic figure are much older than the mythical NT texts.

Duvduv

I have never seen any evidence of this including in any ancient Jewish texts.

outhouse

sources please


because context will play into it as its a greek word for "annointed" and "messiah" used previously was not unique to jesus or his movement.

using the same word a later date has nothing with a living mythology that evolved into a first century movement.

fail on your part.

Duvduv

Just to make my point more clearly. How does Irenaeus account for all the years of activity of Paul in the epistles and Acts (which of course the 2nd century Irenaeus knew about)??

If he believed that Paul died before the destruction of the Temple then Jesus dying at around fifty, and Paul coming along a couple of years later only allowed Paul to be active for about 10 years at the most.

And certainly Mr. Irenaeus could not have been ignorant of when the Temple was destroyed, and if so, then why would he have been so ignorant of the succession of emperors in his own city of Rome during the several decades prior to that. It's not as if Mr. Irenaeus was discussing even 500 years earlier (according to those who believe his books were written in the second century).

And unless I am mistaken, neither the books attributed to Tertullian or Origen criticized Irenaeus for getting his history all wrong.

Sheshbazzar

Read the Tanaka and Septuagint. The 'Christos' High Priest whose name 'yod-hey-wah-shin-ayn' was that of the prophecied BRANCH was known and familiar to LXX reading Jews and gentiles 450 years -BEFORE- the mythological NT figure was ever 'born'.
'Yod-hey-wah-shin-ayn' is that Hebrew name 'translated' into Greek as 'Iaso' and Latinized and thence Anglacanized into the forms 'Iesus' and 'Joshua, or 'Jesus'.

'ho Christos Iaso' or 'The Christ Jesus' was known as the messianic TITLE and NAME by LXX reading Jews and gentiles for over 500 years before being incorported into the NT church's religious mythology. It continued to be pronounced just as it had been for more than a thousand years BEFORE 'Christ', the spelling however became disguised and seperated through Christian employment of 'nomina-sacra' abbreviation.




.

Sheshbazzar

That you fail being able to read or to comprehend the contents of either the Hebrew or Greek texts is not a failure in my part.
All LXX readers would have been long familiar with these terms, and indeed they are employed in the Greek NT quotations of OT texts as they naturally would be, never having passed from usage, and now became applied to the One believed to be the fullfilment of all of those 'Christos' and 'Jesu' - 'Joshua' - 'Jesus' prophetic 'type' texts.

mountainman

On a relative scale its the best method we have. It tells us that the papyrus used in the Coptic gJudas was harvested between 220 and 340 CE. We are having then to deduce the date of authorship of the Greek originals.


The gJudas is exceedingly similar to the Nag Hammadi Codices which have been dated quite securely by an analysis of their cartonage. We are looking here at the distinct possibility that the Coptic material was all manufactured after the all important "Council of Nicaea".

The question of course is about the Greek originals. I maintain that it is entirely reasonable that these Greek originals were authored immediately after Nicaea as a literary reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible.



I disagree entirely. There are in fact a number of reasonable arguments that may be made on the basis of all other evidence in our possession. One of them is mentioned above, in the dating of the NHC via cartonage to c.350 CE.



You are aware of course that the final report for the C14 date on gJudas has not been yet issued after the tests of 2005. A preliminary report by Peter Head reveals there were three papyri tests with the results of:

a) 280 CE +/- 60 years
b) 280 CE +/- 60 years
c) 333 CE +/- 60 years

The result c) was ignored on account of the fact that it was a loose bit of papyrus.

Comparison of the gJudas and the NHC reveals many similarities, and the NHC have been very securely dated by cartonage, hence the argument that the gJudas represents a Counter-Jesus story before 220 CE is not as strong as the argument that all these Counter-Jesus stories were manufactured after Nicaea, when the Orthodox Jesus suddenly appeared in the imperial spotlight.

And BTW, the gJudas is not a canonical Jesus story but a non canonical Jesus story. It is therefore better regarded as a Counter-Jesus story. In it, Judas is the "Thirteenth Demon" and the other 12 demons cannot look at the Counter-Jesus in the eye. The gnostics were writing a naughty story about the canonical jesus, and the heresiologists were not impressed.

mountainman

Those asserting the existence of Christians of any type in the early centuries are going to need an affadavit, and a palaeographical affadavit is second rate.