JESUS? CHRIST?- Gospels are Legends

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: இயேசு கிறிஸ்து யார்?


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
இயேசு கிறிஸ்து யார்?
Permalink  
 


 

லூக்கா விருப்பப்படியான சுவிசேஷம்

1 ஆபிரகாம்

2 ஈசாக்கு

3 யாக்கோப்பு

4 யூதா

5 பெரேட்சு

6 எட்சரோன்

7 ஆர்னி

8 அத்மின்

9 அம்மினதாப

10 நகசோன்

11 சாலா

12 போவாசு

13 ஓபேது

14 ஈசாய்

15 தாவீது

16 நாத்தான்

17 மத்தத்தா

18 மென்னா

19 மெலேயா

20 எலியாக்கிம்

21 யோனாம்

22 யோசேப்பு

23 யூதா

24 சிமியோன்

25 லேவி

26 மாத்தாத்து

27 யோரிம்

28 எலியேசர்

29 ஏசு

30 ஏர்

31 எல்மதாம்

32 கோசாம்

33 அத்தி

34 மெல்கி

35 நேரி

36 செயல்தியேல்

37 செருபாபேல்

38 ரேசா

39 யோவனான்

40 யோதா

41 யோசேக்கு

42 செமேய்

43 மத்தத்தியா

44 மாத்து

45 நாகாய்

46 எஸ்லி

47 நாகூம்

48 ஆமோசு

49 மத்தத்தியா

50 யோசேப்பு

51 யன்னாய்

52 மெல்கி

53 லேவி

54 மாத்தாத்து

55 ஏலி

56 யோசேப்பு

57 யேசு



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

மத்தேயு விருப்பப்படியான சுவிசேஷம்

1. ஆபிரகாம்

2. ஈசாக்கு

3. யாக்கோப்பு

4. யூதா

5. பெரேட்சு (தாமாருக்கு)

6. எட்சரோன்

7. ஆராம்

8. அம்மினதாபு

9. நகசோன்

10. சல்மோன்(ஆராகாபுக்கு)

11. போவாசு

12. ஓபேது (ருத்துக்கு)

13. ஈசாய்

14. தாவீது

15. சாலமோன். (உரியாவின் மனைவியிடம்

16. ரெகபயாம்

17 அபியாம்.

18 ஆசா.

19 யோசபாத்து.

20 யோராம்

21 உசியா

22 யோத்தாம்

23 ஆகாசு.

24 எசேக்கியா.

25 மனாசே

26 ஆமொன்

27 யோசியா.

28 எக்கோனியா (பாபிலோனுக்குச் சிறை)

29 செயல்தியேல்

30 செருபாபேல்

31 அபியூது

32 எலியாக்கிம்

33 அசோர்.

34 சாதோக்கு.

35 ஆக்கிம்

36 எலியூது

37 எலயாசர்.

38 மாத்தான்.

39 யாக்கோபு.

40 யோசேப்பு. (மரியாவின் கணவர்)

41 யேசு

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

.J. Cadoux: The Life of Jesus

Dr. C.J. Cadoux, who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, thus sums up the conclusions of eeminent Biblical scholars regarding the nature and composition of Mark Gospel:

“It was written after Peter's martyrdom (65 A. D.), and at a time when Mark, who had not himself been a disciple of Jesus, apparently had non of the personal disciples of Jesus within reach by whose knowledge he could check his narrative.These circumstances of its composition account for the existence in it, side by side, of numerous signs of accuracy and a certain number of signs of ignorance and inaccuracy."

Matthew-"But a close examination of the treatment he gives to his borrowings from Mark shows that he allowed himself great freedom in editing and embroidering his material in the interest of what he regarded as therightful honouring of the great Master. The same tendencies are often visible elsewhere when he is producing 'Q' or providing matter peculiar to himself. Anything, there fore, strictly peculiar to 'Matthew' can be accepted as historical only with great caution."

John:"The speeches in the Fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messianic claim) are so different from those in the Syoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said : Literary veracity in ancient times did forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters:the best ancient historians made a practice of and assigning such speeches in this way."I



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

The New Catholic Encyclopaedia (1967), art, “The Holy
Trinity”, Volume 14, 

"The formulation one God in three persons' was not solidly established into Christian life and its profession ,of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic, Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a entali.ty or perspective."



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

இஸ்ரேல் சென்றால் இயேசுக்கிறிஸ்து இந்த பூமியில் வாழ்ந்ததற்கான ஆதாரேமே இல்லை இன்று இஸ்ரேல் தொல்பொருள் துறையே கூறியுள்ளது. இயேசு  எப்போது வாழ்ந்தார்? எக்காலத்தைச் சார்ந்தவர் என்பது பற்றி அதிகாரபூர்வமாக எதுவும் தெரியாது? இயேசு பற்றிய வரலாறு கூட ஒன்றுக்கொன்று முரணாக உள்ளது. யாரின் கூற்றைத்தான் நம்புவதோ?

வரலாற்று ஏசு பற்றி ஹாவர்ட் பல்கலைக் கழக புதிய ஏற்பாடுத்துறைத் தலைவர் ஹெல்மட் கொயெஸ்டர் சொல்வது:Introduction to the New Testament. New York: DeGruyter, 1982. 2nd ed., 2002-The Quest for the Historic Kernels of the Stories of the Synoptic Narrative materials is very difficult. In fact such a quest is doomed to miss the point of such narratives, because these stories were all told in the interests of mission, edification, cult or theology (especially Christology) and they have no relationship to the question of Historically Reliable information.Precisely those elements and features of such narratives which vividly lead to the story and derived not from Actual Hisorical events, but belong to the form and style of the Genres of the several Narrative types. Exact statements of names and places are almost always secondary and were often introduced for the first time in the literary stage of the Tradition. P-64 V-II
ஒத்த கதை சுவிகள்(மாற்கு, மத்தேயூ, லூக்கா) சொல்லும் புனைக் கதைகளுக்கும் வரலாற்றைத் தேடுவது மிகக் கடினம். வரலாற்று உண்மைகளைத் தேடுபவர்கள் – சுவிகதைகள் எதற்காகப் பு¨னெயப்பட்டுள்ளன என்பதை விட்டுவிடுவர், ஏனென்றால் சுவிகள் – மதம் பரப்ப, சிறு விஷயத்தைப் பெரிது படுத்திட, மூடநம்பிக்கைக் குழு அமைக்க, இறையியல்- (அடிப்படையில் இறந்த ஏசுவைத் தெய்வமாக்கும்) தன்மையில் வரையப்பட்டவை; சுவிகளுள் நம்பிக்கைக்குரிய வரலாற்று விபரங்கள் ஏதும் கிடையாது.சுவிகளின் முக்கியமான புனையல்கள் நம்மைத் தள்ளிக் கொண்டு செல்லும் விவரங்கள் அடிப்படையில் வரலாற்றில் நடந்த சம்பவங்கள் இல்லை, பல விதமாக கதை செய்யும் யுக்தியில் புனையப்பட்டவை, சம்பவங்களில் வரும் நபர்கள் -நடந்த இடங்கள் முக்கியத்துவம் தராமல் பெரும்பாலும் முதல் முறை அவ்வப்போது தரப்படும்.
கிறிஸ்துவ மதப் புராணக் கதை நாயகர் ஏசு, இந்த ஏசு பற்றி நடுநிலையாளர் ஏற்கும்படி ஒரு ஆதாரமும் இல்லை, இத்தை பிரிட்டானிகா கலைக்களஞ்சியம் கூறுவது “None of the Sources of his Life can be Traced on to Jesus himself. He did not leave a Single Known Written Word. Also there are no Contemporary Accounts of Jesus’s Life and Death” – Vol-22, Pg.336 Encyclopedia Britanica.
கிறிஸ்து என்பதானது, மேசியா எனும் எபிரேய பட்டத்தின் கிரேக்கம். மேசியா என்றால் மேலே எண்ணெய் தடவப் பட்டவர். இஸ்ரேலின் யூத அரசன், படைத் தலைவர், ஆலயத் தலைமைப் பாதிரி பதவி ஏற்பின்போது எண்ணெய் தடவப் படுதலைக் குறிக்கும் சொல். மேலுள்ள பதவிகட்கு தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப் பட்டவர் என்னும் பொருள். எபிரேய யூத மதத்தில் கடவுள் மனிதனாக வருதல் ஏதும் கிடையாது.


__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

Josephus (c37-100 AD)


Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews.In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

 

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was"not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Josephus knows nothing of Christians

It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.

This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).

And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:

"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of thePharisees, the second that of theSaduccees, the third, that of theEssenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.

Josephus elsewhere doesrecord a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar:

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say thatGod is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23.

Nothing could better illustrate the bogus nature of theTestimonium than the remaining corpus of Josephus's work.

 


Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more aboutJohn the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee,Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, headds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.


3. The question of context.

Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with "all sorts of misfortunes" which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the "fourth sect of philosophy ... which laid the foundation of our future miseries." That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, "which before we were unacquainted withal."

At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians" (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

"It was in Gessius Florus's time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."


"Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord." Sound a tad familiar?

Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.

Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate's attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar's ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

Immediately after, Josephus continues:

"And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."


There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was "another terrible misfortune" for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The "aqueduct massacre" now justifies "another terrible misfortune."


4.
 The final assertion, that the Christians were "not extinct at this day," confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

 

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

 

REALITY CHECK

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the 'golden paragraph' in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus 'on message.'

 

The "Arabic Josephus"

In a novel embellishment to the notion of an orthodox Jew giving testimony of Jesus, defenders of the faith have in recent times tossed an Arabic version of the Josephus text on to their pile of dubious evidence. The Arabic recension was brought to light in 1971 by Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Pines himself remained cautious about claims of untampered authenticity but the brethren have no such reservations, such is their desperation to keep Josephus in the witness stand for Jesus.

The work in question is actually a history of the world to the year 941/942 penned by a Christian Arab bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis. His World History preserves, in Arabic translation, a version of the Testimonium minus the most obvious Christian interpolations.

But what does a 10th century copy actually prove?

Claims that the Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are untenable (written Arabic barely existed at such an early date). Moreover Agapius was a Melkite Christian (pro-Byzantium) at a time of intensifying Islamization of his native Syria. What he wrote was political correctness for his own times. A new Shia Hamdani dynasty had been established barely 50 miles away in Aleppo. Its first prince, Sayf ad Dawlah ("sword of the state"), began a century of persistent attacks against Byzantium. Agapius' paraphrase of a Syriac rendition of Josephus from a Greek original rather significantly mentions JC's "condemnation to die" but not the actuality of it and of JC being "alive" 3 days later – in other words, a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross.

In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of the Christian godman and serves only to confuse the unwary.

 Justus of Tiberias

'I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... and being under the Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.'

– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century 

Justus was also an historian, a rival to Josephus, and from the same region. Perhaps his work was not as easily doctored – his histories did not make it through the Christian Dark Age and are – as they say! – 'lost to us'.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

Chronology of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he only sources of information on Jesus' birth are the gospels of Matthew and Luke of theBible.

Matthew describes King Herod as the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and Herod died in 4BC. Furthermore, to kill Jesus and eliminate him as a rival king, Herod orders the "Massacre of the Innocents" — the killing of all male children in Bethlehem aged two years and under. This means that Jesus may have been up to two years old already by that time, and this sets the Nativity at around 6BC.

Luke places the Nativity during the Census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 AD, although Luke states the conception took place during the reign of King Herod — about 10 years earlier.

 

Many scholars regard the star as a literary invention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to claim fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (Numbers 24:17).[8].

 

 

Dating John the Baptist from the Bible

The Gospel according to Luke is unusually specific about the date of John the Baptist's teaching:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]
Historical records are available for all of the rulers mentioned:
  • Tiberius Caesar was joint ruler of Rome from 12 CE, and came into power in his own right in 14 CE. Therefore the fifteen year of his reign must have been between 26-29 CE.
  • Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea between 26-36 CE.
  • Herod Anitpas and his brother Philip ruled until their deaths in 39 CE and 34 CE respectively.
  • Annas was high-priest between 6-15 CE, and was apparently still influential during the tenure of his son-in-law Caiaphas in 18-37 CE.
According toLuke, therefore, John The Baptist's ministry must have began around 26-29 CE. Further,Luke 3:23states that Jesus Christ was about thirty years old at this time.

It is commonlycalculatedthat Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 CE or (more likely) 3 April 33 CE. (Sir Isaac Newtonpreferreda date of 23 April 34 CE).


Dating John the Baptist's death from Josephus

Josephus mentions John The Baptist in hisAntiquitiesat 18.5.2 116-119.
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." [18.5.2116-119]
In his web pageJohn the Baptist and JosephusG. J. Goldberg writes:
"A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him..." 

"...it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE..." 

"According to Josephus, John the Baptist is arrested around this time and killed shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, this is after the traditional dating of Jesus death, but traditional also says that Jesus began his ministry around the time John died."
Goldberg considers explanations for this 36 CE dating by the scholar Christiane Saulnier, but concludes:
"Considering the arguments as a whole, Saulnier does propose a possible way in which Josephus' chronology can be reconciled with the gospels'. For believers in the basic accuracy of the gospels, that is enough. But if one regards the gospels' dating as suspect and solely works from Josephus' text, then Saulnier's discussion pushes the date back some but does not produce any firm evidence identifying the date... before the early 30's CE. The reader can choose between these alternatives according to his or her own predisposition. "
The 36 CE date is of interest not only because it is two or three years later than the accepted date for Christ's death; but also because Pontius Pilate's term as governor of Judaeaendedin that year.

This problem with dating has long been recognised by Christian writers. The 1902 Catholic Encyclopedia has thisexplanationfor the discrepancy:
"...it should be remembered that [Josephus]... is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention."
This argument is expanded by the Fundamentalist apologetics website Tektonics:"...It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7)."This does indeed seem to throw the datings apparently given by Josephus into question. 


Conclusion

It seems that either Josephus is wrong, or the Bible (or both!). The very specific dating given in Luke3:1-3isnotrepeated in the other Gospels, and the authorship of Luke isuncertain.

Readers may also be interested to note that the early Christian writer St.Irenaeus(c. 125-191 CE) wrote that apostlistic tradition taught that Jesus was aroundfiftywhen he died - and that he preached for many more than the three years commonly attributed. If trus, this would imply that Jesus was either born well before 1 BCE, or that he died well after the time of Pilate.


__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1203
Date:
Permalink  
 

Neil, one only has to consider gMark against Antiquities (around 95 c.e.) to come to the idea that gMark was written prior to Antiquities. In gMark, Herodias is married to Philip. In Antiquities it is the daughter of Herodias, Salome, that is married to Philip. Likewise, Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip. gLuke drops the Herodias married to Philip account of gMark – indicating that it was written after Antiquities. The issue here relates to Josephus and his reconstruction of Hasmonean/Herodian history. Did he take liberties in his work? Liberties that would be par for the course by a prophetic historian intent upon his own agenda. Nikos Kokkinos has questioned Josephus in regard to Salome being married to Philip. Some of the problems involved are mentioned in an article by Ross S Kraemer:

Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy? JBL Summer 2006

Comment by maryhelena — 2012/02/06 @ 8:58 pm Reply



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard