Duvduv

Maryhelena, something is still unclear to me here.
This Epiphanius lived in the 4th century, and yet he does not invoke either his canonical Matthew or Luke when discussing when Jesus was born, at least insofar as Bethlehem is concerned.

Furthermore, if Josephus was known to all these writers going back a long time, , not the least of which is GLuke itself, why would Epiphanius be clueless as to the Herodian dynasty if the gospels were written long before him?

One would expect him to cite his "Holy Scripture" of the Gospels.....and at least to show knowledge of Josephus.

For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans ; and this Alexander, one of the anointed (or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head.

maryhelena

So what would you suggest we do with the Epiphanius account re Christ and Alexander (Jannaeus)? Epiphanius was a crank. Epiphanius made stuff up? Yes, that’s the easy way out of the Epiphanius material. I have sought, in this OP, to delve into the question of the identity of Salina.

Why Epiphanius wrote what he wrote, what was his motive etc, I don’t know. That said, working from an ahistoricist position re the gospel figure of JC, I do think it’s possible that what Epiphanius wrote could have some value for investigating early Christian origins. At the very least, his words could suggest that one cannot be confined to the gospel JC storyboard in any attempt at searching for early Christian origins. The gospel story is more like the end product; it’s what went into producing that product that we need to get on the table, so to speak. Epiphanius is suggesting we begin looking further afield - prior to the time of Herod the Great and his siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.

aa5874

Epiphanius is telling us that the Jesus story is NOT credible and cannot be retrieved.

If Christians could NOT determine when their supposed Lord and Savior lived for hundreds of years how do you expect people today to "look further afield" without any evidence.

The recovered dated texts only reveal evidence for Jesus stories in the 2nd century or later.

There is NOTHING else further afield except massive holes in their Jesus stories.

Remember that Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church claimed Jesus suffered during the reign of Claudius.

It is clear the life of Jesus was wholly invented.

Duvduv

How about a reason like the possibility that GMatt and GLuke were not available to this person Epiphanius, and that Josephus also was not?
I have not reviewed all the writings of Epiphanius, so I cannot know whether these texts were available to him..
It seems preposterous that an individual identified in the 4th century could write what he did if those texts were available to him......Especially since the canonized NT had allegedly been around for a long time!

Duvduv

Epiphanius would therefore not even have known ostensibly what was in Justin's Memoirs all those years before! And not to invoke the sacred gospel for information about his Christ would be most peculiar.

maryhelena

How about Epiphanius being savey enough to realize the gospel story is only a reflection upon historical realities and not itself a historical story. i.e. the man knew some history and was interested in using that history in his understanding, interpretation, of the gospel storyline. That is what is in his material - history. It is history, historical realities, that have the upper hand - not it's reflection, not its interpretation, not its evaluation, that is contained within the gospel pages.

aa5874

How about putting Epipnanius on trial like you requested for Jopsehus?? You ought to know that claims made by Epiphanius are Unattested.

If Epiphanius lived hundreds of years later then we surely cannot show he was writing the history of Christ if he is NOT corroborated.

Duvduv

I tend to think that it's because the texts did not exist when this person was writing, unless there are contradictory citations attributed to him.

maryhelena

And is that not what I have done in this thread? Epiphanius makes mention of
'Selina' and says this person is also called 'Alexandra'. Check out the OP. At the very least Epiphanius seems to be referencing, and interpreting, the Toledot Yeshu story. The story of the Toledot Yeshu, a story placed in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, remains a story that needs to be addressed. Epiphanius is referencing this story in connection with his Christ figure. Epiphanius made that link - the gospel story notwithstanding. In other words, history has been allowed to trump the gospel storyline.

aa5874

You have merely made "Opening Statements" you are yet to present the evidence and coroborative sources of antiquity to support Epiphanius.

Please, show that Epiphanius did NOT invent his stories about Christ like you accused Josephus of inventing the Essenes even when he was NOT the first to mention them.

Josephus claimed the Essenes were human beings so put Epiphanius on trial and see if he SWEARS by God that Jesus was God's own Son born of a Ghost and a Virgin.