spin

Thanks. It was interesting to see the Latin translation. When was it made?

I'm working from my own analysis of the data and before Claudius's time, procurators in provinces had no magisterial powers (they were given to them through Claudius's intervention in the senate, Suetonius Cl. 12.1), so could make no rulings. Procurators were not patricians, but equestrians or freedmen. Tacitus H.5.9.8 marks when they were given rule in Judea, during the reign of Claudius, which coincides with the transfer of magisterial power onto the procurators.


spin

Ben C Smith

Very shortly after its first publication in Greek, according to scholars. However, I do not know offhand on what this judgment is based.

Ben.

ETA: I just found in the Harvey introduction that this judgment may be based on Tertullian evidently having this same Latin translation of Irenaeus before him. OTOH, this page (or via: amazon.co.uk) on Amazon says 380. Perhaps Roger Pearse would know.

Gamera

But how can you deal with the "fictitious nature" of a text without comparing it to "nonfiction" texts, which you apparently do through a process whereby you construct a putative and nonexitent "historian" in antiquity who wrote historical texts. What qualities are you attributing to fictiveness?

Of course the gospels are filled with miraculous events. But my point is miraculous events appear in "historical" texts of the time too. So if you're creating categories, you lack an "historical" category to compare the gospel to.

There appears to be no categorical difference between the gospels and the biographies of the time. Rather, they appear to record historical events, interwoven with hagiography and miracles. This is typical of the time.

So at the very least, while I don't begrudge your determination to reject the historicity of miraculous events in the gospels, I do question your categorization of the gospels as fiction.

aa5874

There are no miraculous events in the gospels of the NT, they are all fictitious events. These events were believed to be miraculous, but of course, they never occured as described.

A miracle is an event where a miracle actually occured, otherwise it is fiction.

aa5874

If Irenaeus says that Jesus lived to be an old man, then Jesus could have lived until the time of Trajan. That should be obvious to you.

Chris Weimer

Jesus would have to have been in his late 90s if he lived until Trajan; John even later.

Chris Weimer

Can you prove your assertion?

mountainman

The confusion about Jesus covers the first three centuries.
Nothing is certain about the text, and no external evidence
from science and/or archeology substantiates the claim of
the christian texts, namely, that "the tribe of christians"
existed (in the historical sense) either in the 1st, 2nd or
3rd centuries.

Only in the 4th century does everything
become "harmonised" and squared away
with respect to correlational evidence.

For example, if you were to investigate the "historicity
of Irenaeus" as you have the "historicity of JC" then you
may come to the same conclusion: namely "Irenaeus was
not an historical personage". Where does that leave your
statement about the 2nd century?

aa5874

Can you refute my assertion? And by the the way how do you prove nothing happened?

aa5874

Can you prove that?