Sheshbazzar

If he wasn't there they didn't need to 'take' him as anything. It is a story, not history. It doesn't even consider, much less cover every gap and fault in its credibility.
This is of no more historical than is the fictional 'cleansing of the Temple'. It never happened except in the writers imagination.
The story was constructed to convey an ethical message, about the treatment of women and other, even looked on as 'inferiour' peoples, not to be examined as being a literal historical report.

wordy

Thanks what Adam write in post 27
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...6&postcount=27
about that uproars in 35CE?

Could not John 4 be about this guy then?
The writers change the story so it fills another purpose.
It is a rhetorical tool and not a historical text it refer maybe
to something known to the Samaritans. The text include them
in the story about Jesus Christ?

Chili

My all time favorite line comes to mind here from Coliolanus: Know thou first,/ I loved the maid I married" (1V.v.114-15); to say that Jesus was a Jew, and it was the Jews that crucified him . . . wherefore Valeria returned to Rome so the 'serpent may be raised' in the final victory of all. Magdalene was Valeria here, so full of valor that her name could no longer take it and she just had to know who she truly was.

Not to leave you wonder what this really means let me add that Magdalane was the temple tramp in his own conscious mind that he 'married' when he left Eden as first Adam way back when, and here now must part company with her as the greater woman he has found deep within his soul . . . and hence Valeria returned to Rome to be his efficient cause in memory now as Second Adam to be known.

Hint hint, Magdalene was the valor of his life now greatly to be praised and hence the kiss in public. She is a doll and greatly to be praised by all men throughout the ages and hence, no history again.

andrewcriddle

I doubt if Einhorn's proposed chronology of Paul is compatible with the evidence in Galatians. (References to a 14 year period etc.) However this is possibly not critical to her thesis.

Andrew Criddle

Adam

Yes, but my Post #27 has already eliminated any need to move Jesus from 30 or 33 CE to the fifties, as at most a shift to 35 CE would fit Josephus's account. This would give us the insurrection known to the gospels.

stephan huller

It is worth noting what actually appears at the end of Clement's Stromata (7:17):

Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ Κυρίου κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν διδασκαλία, ἀπὸ Αὐγούστου καὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἀρξαμένη, μεσούντων τῶν Αὐγούστου χρόνων τελειοῦται.

“For the teaching of the Lord on His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius in the middle of the times of Augustus, was completed.”

Schaff's note - In the translation, the change recommended, on high authority, of Αὐγούστου into Τιβερίου in the last clause, is adopted, as on the whole the best way of solving the unquestionable difficulty here. If we retain Αὐγούστου, the clause must then be made parenthetical, and the sense would be: “For the teaching of the Lord on His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius (in the middle of the times of Augustus), was completed.” The objection to this (not by any means conclusive) is, that it does not specify the end of the period.

The first 15 years of the life of our Lord were the last 15 of the reign of Augustus; and in the 15th year of the reign of his successor Tiberius our Lord was baptized. Clement elsewhere broaches the singular opinion, that our Lord’s ministry lasted only a year, and, consequently that He died in the year in which He was baptized. As Augustus reigned, according to one of the chronologies of Clement, 43, and according to the other 46 years 4 months 1 day, and Tiberius 22 or 26 years 6 months 19 days, the period of the teacing of the Gospel specified above began during the reign of Augustus, and ended during the reign of Tiberius.

Duvduv

It is rather interesting because the Samaritsn concept of the Tahib- Restorer is not the same as the messiah. The Tahib restores the Age of Favor from Disfavor and brings back the Jews to Samaritan belief that was lost when they left Gerizim in the time of Eli.
There seems to be a mishmash of ideas in John 4.

stephan huller

Hayyim notes that the sections of the Mimar that mention the concept if the Ta'eb are more recent

Duvduv

Apparently the author of GJohn was unaware that the rejection of Jerusalem by the Samaritans also meant a rejection of a Jewish messiah from the rejected Davidic dynasty. Then we see in John 4 the way Jesus adheres to the concept of the Davidic Jerusalem and claims a new idea, i.e. that in the future it and Gerizim will be ignored by the John savior figure.

stephan huller

No that's not it. The original text was corrupted in the late 2nd century