Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: புதிய ஏற்பாடு – சுவிசேஷங்கள் – நம்பகத் தன்மை வாய்ந்ததா?இல்லையே!


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7474
Date:
புதிய ஏற்பாடு – சுவிசேஷங்கள் – நம்பகத் தன்மை வாய்ந்ததா?இல்லையே!
Permalink  
 


புதிய ஏற்பாடு – சுவிசேஷங்கள் – நம்பகத் தன்மை வாய்ந்ததா?இல்லையே!

 இயேசு கதைகளை சொல்லும் சுவிசேஷங்களில் பேதுருவின்  மரணத்திற்கு பின் எனில் முதலில் புனையப்பட்ட மாற்கு 70 - 80 க்கு இடையே ஆகும் ஆவது   பின்னால் வரையப்பட்டவை மத்தேயு லூக்கா; இரண்டாம் நூற்றாண்டில் ரோம் மன்னன் ட்ரோஜன் காலத்தில் புனையப்பட்டது யோவான் சுவிசேஷம் .  நம்மிடம் எவற்றுக்கும் மூலப்பிரதிகள் கிடையாது எனவே கிடைத்துள்ள ஏடுகளை பற்றிய சோதனைகளை பார்ப்போம்

 

 இதற்கு 3 சோதனை மூலம் அறியலாம்,  

1. BIBILOGRAPHICAL TEST : பைபிளோகிராபி சோதனை  நம்மிடம் எத்தனை சுவடிகள், சொல்லப்படும் நபர்க்கும் சுவடிகளுக்கும் உள்ள இடைவெளி, இதை வைத்து புஏ கதைகள் நம்பிக்கைக்கு உரியதாக புனைகின்றனர். அதாவது   புஏ ஏடுகள் ஏசு மரணத்திலிருந்து 100 வருடத்திலிருந்து தெளிவான ஏடுகள் உள்ளதாம், 25000 மேலான சுவடிகள் உள்ளதாம். மழுப்பலாளர் சொல்வது திருவள்ளுவரோ, அசோகரோ இவர்கள் பற்றி உள்ள ஏடுகள் அவர்கள் மரணத்திற்கு 1000 வருடம் பின்பு மிகச் சில ஏடுகள் மட்டுமே கொண்டு அவர்களை வரலாற்று நபர் என ஏற்கிறீர்கள். ஆனால் ஏசு பொ.கா.30 வாக்கில் மரணம், 130ஐ சேர்ந்த் பைபிள் ஏடுகள் உள்ளது என்கின்றனர்.
பழமையான ஏடுகள் 127:  நாம் புஏ- வின் பெரும்பாலன ஏடுகள் 127, மிகபபழமையானவை, இவை எங்கே உள்ளது எனும் இணையப் பக்கத்தைத் தருகிறோம் . இவை 2ம் நூற்றண்டின் இறுதியில் இருந்து 8ம் நூற்றாண்டு வரையிலானது எனப் பட்டியல் உள்ளது, இந்த ஏடுகளில், எந்த் பூஏ புத்தகத்தில் எந்த அதிகாரம் உள்ளது என உள்ளது.இவற்றில் ஒரு ஏடு கூட 27 புத்தகங்களின் ஒரு புத்தகத்தின் முழு ஏடு கிடையாது.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
இதில் மிகப் பழமையானது ஏடு பி.52 ஜான் ரைலேண்ட் ஏடாம்- 125 ஆனது என்கிறது. இந்த ஏடின் படம் கீழே ; அது பற்றிய இணைப்பும் தருகிறோம்.
dae4d-200px-p52_recto.jpg?w=6302321d-200px-p52_verso.jpg?w=630
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
  ஒரு கடன் அட்டையினை குறுக்கில் கிழித்த அளவு, முழுமையாக ஒரு வசனம் கூடக் கிடையாது. இந்த ஏட்டின் காலம் பற்றி கருத்து ஒற்றுமை இல்லையாம், தற்போதைய எழுத்தியல் ஆய்வு 150 வரை தள்ளி செல்கிறதாம்
Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely onpaleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.//

இதற்கு அடுத்தது ஆக்ஸ்ரைன்கஸ் ஏடு –
ae211-250px-papyrus_90_john_19-1-7.jpg?w f072b-250px-poxy_v0064_n4404_a_01_hires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_90     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104

 இதன் காலம் 150 – 200 எனப் படுகிறது. இவை தான் 2ம் நூற்றாண்டின் மிக முக்கிய ஏடுகள்
இந்த ஏடுகள் பைபிளிற்கு என்பதால் இப்படி பிரபலமாகச் சொல்லப் படுகிறது, வேறு புத்தகமாக இருந்தால் இவை நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டு இருக்கும். இந்த ஏடுகள் எந்த விதத்திலும் பைபிளிற்கு நம்பகத்தன்மை தரவில்லை.
அடுத்த இரண்டு சோதனைகள்
2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST : உள்ளே சொல்லபட்டவையின் சோதனை 
“One must to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies”. John W. Montegomery
 ஆய்வுக்கு உள்ள பழைய புத்தகம் நேர்மையானது என்பதை ஏற்றே ஆக வேண்டும்- அந்த புத்தகத்தில் முரணான மாறுபாடுகளோ, தெரிந்தபடியான தவறுகள் இருக்கக் கூடாது.
 ஏசு சீடரோடு இயங்கிய காலம் எத்தனை நாட்கள்-  தெரியாது.
 3 சுவிகள் ஒரு வருடம் என்கிறது, மேலும் ஏசுவின் மரணத்திற்கு 40 வருடம் பின்பு முதலில் புனையப்பட்ட மாற்கு சுவி ஏசு கதைப்படி, கலிலேயாவை சேர்ந்த ஏசு, யூதேயாவின் எல்லையோர வனாந்திரப் பகுதியில் யோவன் ஞானஸ்நானகரிடம் பாவமன்னிப்பு பெற்ற உடன், யோவான் கைதாகிட  பாவமன்னிப்பு -ஞானஸ்நானம் யோவானிடம் பெற்றார், யோவான் கைதாகிட ஏசு கலிலேயா வந்து அங்கே தன் சீடர்களை சேர்த்து இயங்கி கடைசி வாரம், யூத மதப் புராணக் கதைப்படி, அப்பாவி எகிப்தியரின் முதல் குழந்தகளை கொன்றதற்கு நன்றியாக வருடாவருடம், யூதர்களின் சிறு கடவுள் கர்த்தர் இருக்கும் ஒரேஒரு இடமான ஜெருசலேம் ஆலயத்தில் ஆடு கொலை செய்து பலி தர வந்தபோது கைது செய்யப்பட விசாரணைக்குபின் மரணம். அதாவது ஏசு பிறப்பிலிருந்து மரணம் வரை யூதர் தான்.

யோவான் சுவி ஏசு சீடரோடு இயங்கிய காலம் 2 வருடமும் மேலும் சில நாட்களும் என்கிறது. மேலும் ஏசு யூதேயாவிலேயே தான் மூன்று பண்டிகைகள் கூடாரப் பண்டிகை (செப்டம்பர்), மறு அர்ப்பணிப்பு பண்டிகை (டிசம்பர்) பின் பஸ்கா (ஏப்ரல்)  எனக் கடைசி எட்டு மாதங்கள் யூதேயாவில் கழிந்தது.ஏசு சீடரோடு இயங்கும் போது ஒரு முறை  யோவன் ஞானஸ்நானகர் வழியில் வருவதாக ஒரு சம்பவம். அதாவது ஏசு சீடர் சேர்த்து இயக்கம் ஆரம்பித்தபின்பு தான் யோவான் கைது ஆனார் என்கிறது.

இதை பைபிள் அறிஞர் தெளிவாக உறுதி செய்கிறார்.
If we had only Mark’s Gospel we should infer that Jesus ministry was located in Galilee with one first and final visit to Jerusalem, and that the Galilean ministry began after John the Baptist was imprisoned.
The IVth Gospel takes a different view. Here the scene shifts backwards and forwards between Galilee and Judea during the first 6 chapters. From Chapter-7 onwards the scene is laid wholly in Judea and Jerusalem. Moreover, St.John explicitly states that Jesus was active in Judea and Jerusalem before the Baptist was imprisoned, for John was not yet cast in Prison (Jn 3:24) 
Page-45, Words and Works of Jesus, A.M.Hunter.
மாற்கு ஏசு இயங்கிய காலம் முழுதும் கலிலெயாவில் என்றும், பாவமன்னிப்பு ஞானஸ்நானம் பெறவும், கடைசி ஒருவார்ம் மட்டும் யூதேயாவில் என மாற்கு சொல்லியுள்ளார். நான்காவது சுவிசேஷத்தில், காட்சி கலிலெயா – யூதேயா என மாற்றி மாற்றி முதல் 6 அத்தியாயங்களும், 7ம் அத்தியாயத்திலுருந்து முழுதும் யூதேயாவில்- ஜெருசலேமில் என்கிறார். ஞானஸ்நான யோவான் கைதிற்கு முன்பே ஏசு சீடர் சேர்த்து இயங்கினார் எனவும் காட்டுகிறது.-என பைபிளியல் அறிஞர் ஹன்டர் உறிதியாய் சொல்கிறார்.
மாற்கு சுவியின் 
பேராசிரியர் F F புரூஸ் அவர்கள் “The Real Jesus”  என்ற தன் நூலில் பின் வருமாறு சொல்லுகிறார்“Where as Synoptic   record most of Jesus ministry is located in Galilee,John place most of it in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood.” – Page-27 – THE REAL JESUS.

கலிலேயாவை  ஆஅண்டது ஏரோது, யூதேயாவை ஆண்டது ரோமன் ஆட்சியில், எதற்காக மாற்கு – மத்தேயூ – லூக்கா மூன்று சுவிகளும் கடைசி 7 – 8 மாதங்கள் யூதேயவில் உள்ளதை சொல்லவில்லை. வேறு அரசியல் காரணம் உண்டா தெரியாது. ஆனால் ஏசு படி

லூக்கா 16:10 10 சிறிய காரியங்களில் நம்பிக்கைக்கு உகந்த மனிதன் பெரிய காரியங்களிலும் நம்பிக்கைக்கு ஏற்றவனாயிருப்பான். சிறிய காரியங்களில் நம்பிக்கைக்குத் தகாதவனாக இருப்பவன் பெரிய காரியங்களிலும் அவ்வாறே   இருப்பான்.

மத்தேயுவின்படி ஏசுவின் தந்தை பெதெலஹேமை சேர்ந்த யாக்கோபு மகன் ஜோசப் (ஆபிரகாமிலிருந்து 40வது தலைமுறை)
லூக்காவின் சுவி கதைப்படி ஏசுவின் தந்தை நாசரேத்தை சேர்ந்த ஏலி மகன் ஜோசப் (ஆபிரகாமிலிருந்து 56வது தலைமுறை)

மத்தேயுவின் ஏசு பெரிய ஏரோதின் மரணத்திற்கு 2 வருடம் முன்பு, அதாவது பொ.மு. 6ல் பிறந்திறக்கலாம்.
லூக்காவின் சுவி கதைப்படி ஏசு, ரோமன் ஆட்சியின் கீழாக சிரியா கவர்னர் கிரேனியூ கீழ் யூதேயா வந்த போது மக்கள் திகை கணக்கெடுப்பின்போது அதாவது, பொ.கா. 8ல் பிறந்திருக்கலாம்.
ஏசுவின் மரணம் முதல் சுவி மாற்கின்படி, பஸ்கா பலியை முதல் நாள் தந்திட பண்டிகை அன்று, 4வது சுவிபடி, பஸ்காவிற்கு முந்தைய நாள் அதாவது பலி தரும் நாள். இந்தக் குழப்பத்தால் இன்று வரை ஏசு இறந்த வருடம் எது, பிறந்த வருடம் எது எதிலும் தெளிவு கிடையாது. இது போலே மேலும் 50க்கும் அதிகமான முரண்பாடுகள், இவற்றை அடுத்தக் கட்டுரையில் (சுவிசேஷம் உருவான கதை) காணலாம்

3. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST: வெளியே ஆய்வின் சோதனை
 இது இஸ்ரேலின் நாடு அமைப்பு, புதை பொருள் ஆய்வு முடிவுகள் இவை புதிய ஏற்பாட்டோடு பொருந்துகிறதா எனப் பார்ப்பதாம்.


நாசரேத்தில் இயேசு புறக்கணிக்கப்படுதல் (மத் 13:53 – 58; மாற் 6:1 – 6)

லூக்கா 4:16 16 தான் வளர்ந்த இடமாகிய நாசரேத்திற்கு இயேசு பயணம் செய்தார். யூதர்களின் ஓய்வு நாளில் அவர் வழக்கம் போல் ஜெப ஆலயத்திற்குச் சென்று வாசிப்பதற்காக எழுந்து நின்றார். 

28 ஜெப ஆலயத்தில் உள்ள அனைவரும் இவ்வார்த்தைகளைக் கேட்டனர். அவர்கள் மிகமிகக் கோபம் அடைந்தனர். 29 அம்மக்கள் எழுந்து இயேசுவை நகரத்தில் இருந்து வெளியேறும்படியாகக் கட்டாயப்படுத்தினர். அவர்கள் நகரம் ஒரு மலையின்மேல் நிர்மாணிக்கப்பட்டு இருந்தது. அவர்கள் இயேசுவை மலையின் விளிம்புக்குக் கொண்டு வந்தனர். விளிம்பிலிருந்து அவரைத் தள்ளிவிட அவர்கள் முனைந்தார்கள். 30 ஆனால் இயேசு அவர்களுக்கு நடுவே நடந்து, அங்கிருந்து சென்றுவிட்டார்.
 Nazareth is not mentioned in pre-Christian texts and appears in many different Greek forms in the New Testament. There is no consensus regarding the origin of the name.
James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[39] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people” but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to “a maximum of about 480.”[40] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, “The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth.”[41]
From the following [42] verse in the Gospel of Luke:[And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.[Lk. 4:29]

 

The Gospel of Luke suggests that ancient Nazareth was built on the hillside. Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957. From the ninth century CE tradition associated Christ’s evasion of the attempt on his life to the ‘Hill of the Leap’ (Jabal al-Qafza) overlooking the Jezreel Plain, some 3 km (2 mi) south of Nazareth.[43]
நாசரேத் கதை முழுதும் கட்டுக் கதை. நாசரேத்தி அகழ்வு ஆய்வ்களை சரியானபடி விஞ்ஞான ஆய்வு பற்றிய ஒரு வலை இதோ
மத்தேயு சுவியில் கண்டால்
மத்தேயு 2:21 எனவே, யோசேப்பு எழுந்து குழந்தையையும் அதன் தாயையும் கூட்டிக் கொண்டு இஸ்ரயேல் நாட்டுக்கு வந்து சேர்ந்தார்.22 ஆனால் யூதேயாவில் ஏரோது  அர்க்கெலா தன் தந்தைக்குப்பின் அரசாளுவதாகக் கேள்விப்பட்டு அங்கே போக அவர் அஞ்சினார்; கனவில் எச்சரிக்கப்பட்டுக் கலிலேயப் பகுதிகளுக்குப் புறப்பட்டுச் சென்றார்.  23 அங்கு அவர் நாசரேத்து எனப்படும் ஊருக்குச் சென்று அங்குக் குடியிருந்தார். இவ்வாறு, ‘ ″நசரேயன்″ என அழைக்கப்படுவார் ‘ என்று இறைவாக்கினர்கள் உரைத்தது நிறைவேறியது.

இப்படி ஒரு வசனம் – ஏன் நாசரேத் என்னும் சொல்லே பழைய ஏற்பாட்டில் கிடையாது. தீர்க்கம் நிறைவேறியதாம்.

 

The nature of Matthew’s Pesher is best illustrated by 2:23, which states that Jesus settled down in Nazareth  “that what was spoken by the Prophets might be fulfilled, ” namely “HE” SHOULD BE CALLED A NAZARENE”; now here is the Old Testament we do not have such a statement.
Page -16; K.Luke; Companion to New Testament.
 ஏசுவிற்கு குறைந்தபட்ச ஆதாரம் என முதல் நூற்றாண்டின் கடைசி காலத்தில் எழுதப்பட்டனதான யோசிபஸ் என்பவர் நூலாம், அதன்படி யோவான் ஞானஸ்நானகர் மரணம் பொ.கா.36ல் என்கிறது.
 According to the Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), John was executed because he had criticised the marriage of Herod Antipas to his own brother’s wife, who divorced her husband in order to marry him. Since the marriage took place in 34 CE, it appears that Josephus is giving John’s death as occurring no earlier than approximately 36 CE, which was later than the crucifixion of Jesus.


Josephus places the marriage of Antipas to his brother’s former wife, Herodias, at the same time as, or shortly after, the death of Philip II, who he says died in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius (34 CE). John was highly critical of this marriage, causing Antipas to fear that he would cause an insurrection:
Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.
Josephus makes it clear that Antipas intended to execute John, and it seems most improbable that he would long delay the execution if he feared an insurrection by John’s supporters. The execution would have quickly followed the imprisonment.
Additionally, King Aretas attacked and defeated Antipas in 36 CE in revenge for the slight to his daughter, whom Antipas divorced in order to marry Herodias. We can expect a one or two year delay during which the news reached Aretas and he considered a diplomatic solution or demanded compensation, then raised an army, but an angry father is not likely to have waited ten years to take action.
Some of the Jews believed that Antipas’ defeat was divine retribution for his execution of John:

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.

This association makes it most likely that John’s death was a quite recent event at the time of the defeat – closer in time to the battle than to the wedding, and certainly not something that occurred 8 or 10 years earlier.  
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_John_The_Baptist_die_before_Jesus_died

 சீசருக்கு வரி செலுத்துதல்- ஏசு சொன்னதும் (மத் 22:15 – 22; லூக் 20:20 – 26) 

மாற்கு12:13 பரிசேயர் இயேசுவை அவருடைய பேச்சில் சிக்கவைக்க ஏரோதியர் சிலரை அவரிடம் அனுப்பி வைத்தனர்.14 அவர்கள் அவரிடம் வந்து, ‘ போதகரே, நீர் உண்மையுள்ளவர்; ஆள் பார்த்துச் செயல்படாதவர்; எவரையும் பொருட்படுத்தாமல் கடவுளின் நெறியை உண்மைக்கு ஏற்பக் கற்பிப்பவர் என்பது எங்களுக்குத் தெரியும். சீசருக்கு வரிசெலுத்துவது முறையா, இல்லையா? நாங்கள் செலுத்தவா, வேண்டாமா? ‘ என்று கேட்டார்கள்.15 அவர் அவர்களுடைய வெளிவேடத்தைப் புரிந்து கொண்டு, ‘ஏன் என்னைச் சோதிக்கிறீர்கள்? என்னிடம் ஒரு தெனாரியம் கொண்டுவாருங்கள். நான் பார்க்க வேண்டும்’ என்றார்.footnote.jpg16அவர்கள் அதைக் கொண்டு வந்தார்கள். இயேசு அவர்களிடம், ‘ இதில் பொறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள உருவமும் எழுத்தும் யாருடையவை? ‘ என்று கேட்டார். அவர்கள் அவரிடம், ‘ சீசருடையவை ‘ என்றார்கள்.17 அதற்கு இயேசு அவர்களை நோக்கி, ‘ சீசருக்கு உரியவற்றைச் சீசருக்கும் கடவுளுக்கு உரியவற்றைக் கடவுளுக்கும் கொடுங்கள்‘ என்றார். அவர்கள் அவரைக் குறித்து வியப்படைந்தார்கள்.

 தெனாரியம் காசு ஏசு காலத்தில் யூதேயாவில்  புழக்கத்தில்  வரவே இல்லை(இணைப்பு)

 

denarius featuring Tiberius. The inscription on a denarius of the period reads Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs (“Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus“).

 
The coin   Main article: Tribute penny
The text identifies the coin as a δηνάριον dēnarion,[1] and it is usually thought that the coin was a Roman denarius with the head of Tiberius. The coin is also called the “tribute penny.” The inscription reads “Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs” (“Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”). The reverse shows a seated female, usually identified as Livia depicted as Pax.[2]
However, it has been suggested that denarii were not in common circulation in Judaea during Jesus’ lifetime and that the coin may have instead been an Antiochan tetradrachm bearing the head of Tiberius, with Augustus on the reverse.
 
 அ) சுவிசேஷக் கதாசிரியர்களுக்கு வரலாற்றுஞானம் இல்லை. 

ஆ) இயேசு வாழ்ந்த பகுதிகளைக் குறித்த ஞானம் சுவிசேஷக் கதாசிரியர்களுக்கு  இல்லை
நடு நிலையாக தேடுவோருக்கு பைபிளின் பழைய ஏடுகளோ, இருக்கும் முரண்பாடுகளும் வரலாற்று பிழைகளும் புதிய ஏற்பாடு சிறிதும் நம்பிக்கைக்கும் உரியது இல்லை எனபது தெளிவாகிறது. 



-- Edited by devapriyaji on Sunday 24th of July 2016 01:17:03 PM



-- Edited by admin on Saturday 6th of October 2018 01:17:57 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7474
Date:
RE: புதிய ஏற்பாடு – சுவிசேஷங்கள் – நம்பகத் தன்மை வாய்ந்ததா?இல்லையே!
Permalink  
 


http://www.josephus.org/JohnTBaptist.htm

The Dating of John According to Josephus

    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. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose? 
    He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis. 
    Having said that, 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:

  •     He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
  •      During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.
  •     Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.
  •     Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)

     The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from  Aretas' daughter. 
      So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful. So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels - but, it should be noted, still within the governorship of Pontius Pilate.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7474
Date:
Permalink  
 

Salome

       A widely-known story is that of Salome, Herod's daughter who danced so well that he promised to give her anything she asked for, whereupon she asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. 
        However, in the New Testament Herod's daughter is not named. Then why is it that everyone who's heard the story knows the name Salome? 
        We know it not from the New Testament, but from Josephus, in the passage cited above. Salome was the daughter of Herodias by her first marriage, to Herod-the-son-of-the-daughter-of-Simon-the-high-priest. Mark actually identifies Herodias' first husband as another of Herod the Tetrarch's brothers, Philip. Modern scholars assume this is a mistake, and a natural one, as Philip was, of course, also named Herod. Still, the error indicates that this part of Mark was not written by contemporaries of John, who would certainly have known who married whom.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7474
Date:
Permalink  
 

John the Baptist

and

Josephus

                                                                                   by G. J. Goldberg

 

Contents

       The  New Testament

A Baptism of Repentance 
    Mark 1:4-9 
    Lk 3:3-3:18 (Matthew 3:1-12) 
Herod, Herodias, Salome and the Head of John the Baptist 
    Lk 3:19 
    Lk 9:7-8 (Mark 6:14-16) 
    Mk 6:17-29 (Matt. 14:1-12)

Josephus

 A Baptism of Purification 
 Herodias and Salome 
 Herod and Herodias and Herod's First Wife and Aretas 
 Josephus in the Desert 
 

Comment

The Popularity of John the Baptist 
A Baptism of Repentance 
Essenes 
Herod's Marriage to Herodias 
Salome 
The Dating of John According to Josephus 
       The Argument of Saulnier 
 

The New Testament

A Baptism of Repentance

Mark 1:4-9 
    John the baptizer appeared in the desert, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, "The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." 
 

Lk 3:3-3:18 (Matthew 3:1-12) 
    In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius...the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah, "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight...'" 
    John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance...." 
    And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" In reply he said, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." 
 

Herod, Herodias, Salome and the Head of John the Baptist
Lk 3:19 
    But Herod the Tetrarch, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison.

Lk 9:7-8 (Mark 6:14-16) 
    Now Herod the Tetrarch heard about all that had taken place, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the ancient prophets had arisen. Herod said, "John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he tried to see him.

Mk 6:17-29 (Matt. 14:1-12) 
    For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because Herod had married her. For John had been telling Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. 
    When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him. But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and for the leaders of Galilee. When  the daughter of  Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it." And he solemnly swore to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." She went out and said to her mother, "What should I ask for?" She replied, "The head of John the baptizer." Immediately she rushed back to the king and requested, I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." The king was deeply grieved; yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse her. Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.



 

Josephus

Baptism of Purification

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

     Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist  [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For  immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. 
    And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod. 
 

Herodias and Salome

Antiquities 18.5.3 136

    Herodias was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme the daughter of Simon the high priest. They had a daughter Salome, after whose birth Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers, married Herod the Tetrarch, her husband's brother by the same father, who was tetrarch of Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband.

Herod and Herodias and Herod's First Wife and Aretas

Antiquities 18.5.1 109-115 
(This paragraph immediately precedes the one about John.)

      About this time Aretas, the king of  Petra, and Herod the Tetrarch had a quarrel on account of the following. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas and had lived with her a great while; but once when he was on his way to Rome he lodged with  his half-brother, also named Herod but who had a different mother,  the high priest Simon's daughter.  There he fell in love with Herodias, this latter Herod's wife, who was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and the sister of Agrippa the Great. 
    This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; she accepted, and an agreement was made for her to come to him as soon as he should return from Rome, one condition of this marriage being that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So when he had made this agreement, he sailed to Rome; but when he had finished there and returned again, his wife, having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and before he knew that she knew of the plan, asked him to send her to Machaerus, a place on the border between the territories of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. 
    Accordingly Herod sent her there, thinking his wife had not perceived anything. But she had sent messages a good while before to Machaerus, which had been under the control of her father, and so all things necessary for her escape were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army.  By that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and soon she came to her father and told him of Herod's intentions. 
    Aretas made this the start of his enmity toward Herod. He also had a quarrel with him about their boundaries in the area of Gabalis. So they raised armies on both sides and prepared for war, sending their generals to fight instead of themselves. And when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip and joined the army, betrayed him.  So Herod wrote about these affairs to Emperor Tiberius, who was very angry at the attempt made by Aretas and wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him and either to take him alive, and bring him in chains, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the command that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria. 
 

Josephus in the Desert

Life 2 
    When I was about sixteen years old I had a mind to make a trial of the several sects that were among us. There are three of these, that of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you. I thought that being acquainted with them all I could choose the best. 
    So I consigned myself to hardship, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with the trying of these three only, for when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, to purify himself, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.

Comment

The Popularity of John the Baptist

    Both the New Testament and Josephus depict John the Baptist has having a more powerful influence on the majority of the people of the time than did Jesus. Josephus' description of John is more detailed than his account of Jesus, and John's death is, in the people's view, avenged afterward by Heaven with real actions, but Josephus mentions  no such divine support for Jesus.

    In contrast with his usual attitude toward popular leaders, Josephus is sympathetic towards John the Baptist. One wonders what the difference is between John and the men whom Josephus disparages as "deceivers" (apateônes) and "enchanters" (goêtes), such as Theudas and the Egyptian. It isn't simply that John did not represent a direct threat to Rome -- Josephus always stresses the folly of those who do oppose Rome -- as many of the others also seemed apolitical. All of these, including John, seemed to be killed solely because they had a large following, which in itself was seen as a threat to those in power: there was room for only one crowd and only one leader. We are left to conclude that Josephus himself was touched favorably by the philosophy of John, just as many of his countrymen were. While he was probably working from a source that was itself positive toward John, his choice of that source would have reflected his own attitude. 
 

A Baptism of Repentance

    Josephus seems genuinely intrigued by the notion of baptism and tries to explain it in terms his audience can understand. (The word derives from the Greek baptô, "dip".) He understands it first as a purification of the body, playing the same role as the traditional mikvah. The spiritual question involved is whether John has the power to forgive sins, perhaps with the aid of water that has mystical properties. Josephus strongly denies that John claimed any such power: the washing was a physical manifestation of a spiritual commitment to performing good works.

    In the New Testament John gives a "baptism of repentance," and insists angrily to those who come to him that they must "bear fruits worthy of repentance," an attitude which accords with Josephus' description. But he is also seen as providing "forgiveness of sins" after the repentance has been made, and the religious authorities, particularly in the Book of John, are suspicious that he is taking upon himself a divine role. His follower Jesus is more directly accused of this in the other Gospels.

    Josephus does not hint that John was announcing the imminent coming of the Messiah, as the New Testament does. But throughout his works Josephus deliberately hides references to the Messiah (for example, in his account of Moses he leaves out Deuteronomy 18) -- except to describe the notion as a primary cause of the war with Rome, which was evidently well known to his non-Jewish audience (the Roman historian Tacitus also mentions it), which is reason enough for him to not want to provoke his audience by presenting the idea positively. Yet it is difficult to understand the excitement of the people in response to John simply based on the description of his philosophy as given by Josephus. 
 

Essenes

    Modern scholars see a similarity between John and the sect that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, who are usually taken to be the Essenes described by Josephus. John may have once been an Essene who developed a following of his own.

    This may explain Josephus' favorable view of John, for the Essenes are described in very much greater detail than the other two major Jewish philosophies. Moreover, in his autobiography, Josephus tells us that when he was a teenager he spent three years in the desert  with a man named Banus who resembles John in behavior (as in Mark's description). This Banus clothed himself using only trees,  ate only food that was found in the wild, and bathed himself in cold water several times a day. Yet this Banus was not an Essene, but a unique individual. This experience seems to have given Josephus a lasting sympathy for people who led this way of life, which is quite probably why he speaks so favorably of  John the Baptist. 
 

Herod's Marriage to Herodias

    The gospel of Mark states that John criticized the marriage of Herod the Tetrarch to Herodias, and it was this criticism that led to John's arrest and execution by Herod. Josephus does not  say that the marriage had anything to do with Herod's action. But there is an implied connection between the two -- this is found in Josephus' account of the destruction of Herod's army.

    Herod the Tetrarch did illegally marry Herodias, Josephus tells us. Herodias was a grandchild of Herod the Great and Mariamme the Hasmonean, through Mariamme's son Aristobulus. Her grandfather had arranged her marriage while she was still a child to her cousin, his son Herod, the one whose mother was daughter of the priest Simon. (It much less confusing for us if everyone weren't named Herod.)  This arranged marriage apparently wasn't satisfactory, as she left her "living husband" to marry her husband's step-brother, Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee.

    Whether she simply left her first husband unofficially, thus committing polyandry, or whether she "divorced" him on  her own initiative, the action was contrary to Jewish law, as a woman was, and still is not in Orthodox Judaism, allowed to divorce her husband without his written consent -- i.e., he must divorce her.

    The story does not end there. Josephus tells us that this marriage of Herod the Tetrarch and Herodias led directly to war with the neighboring Arab king, King Aretas; for Herod had been married to Aretas' daughter. Whatever circumspection he had planned to gently divorce her without angering Aretas was thwarted when his wife got wind of his plans and prematurely fled to her father. This, coupled with a dispute over borders, led to the battle that destroyed Herod's army.

    It was this battle that the Jews of Galilee associated with Herod's treatment of John the Baptist, says Josephus. Why would they make such a connection? There are two possibilities. One is a simple chronological proximity: if the army's defeat occurred immediately after Herod's execution of John, the people would have made a direct link between the two events. But the other possibility is conceptual: if John had been killed by Herod some time earlier because he criticized Herod's marriage to Herodias, then seeing the army destroyed as the direct result of this marriage must have looked like a just punishment indeed.

    So even if Josephus does not say so, it is a plausible conjecture, even if we did not have the New Testament sources, that John had indeed criticized Herod's marriage and was executed for it.

    (Incidentally, this King Aretas is the same one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32.)

Salome

       A widely-known story is that of Salome, Herod's daughter who danced so well that he promised to give her anything she asked for, whereupon she asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. 
        However, in the New Testament Herod's daughter is not named. Then why is it that everyone who's heard the story knows the name Salome? 
        We know it not from the New Testament, but from Josephus, in the passage cited above. Salome was the daughter of Herodias by her first marriage, to Herod-the-son-of-the-daughter-of-Simon-the-high-priest. Mark actually identifies Herodias' first husband as another of Herod the Tetrarch's brothers, Philip. Modern scholars assume this is a mistake, and a natural one, as Philip was, of course, also named Herod. Still, the error indicates that this part of Mark was not written by contemporaries of John, who would certainly have known who married whom. 
 

The Dating of John According to Josephus

    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. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose? 
    He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis. 
    Having said that, 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:
  •     He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
  •      During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.
  •     Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.
  •     Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)
     The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from  Aretas' daughter. 
      So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful. So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels - but, it should be noted, still within the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

The Argument of Saulnier

    However, the scholar Christiane Saulnier published a  paper in 1984 arguing that the marriage can be placed in 24 to 28 CE using evidence from Josephus, an argument that Murphy-O'Connor, who is quite careful about dates, accepts in his book Paul: A Critical Life. So let us examine Saulnier's paper (C. Saulnier, "Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarqes sur les confusions chronlogiques do Flavius Josephus," Revue Biblique 91:362-376 (1984)). 
       To establish the earliest date we can know they were wed, Saulnier points out the passage at Antiquities 18.6.2 148  which refers to "Herodias, the wife of Herod the Tetrarch." The task is to date this passage. We know it could not be describing a time prior to 23 CE, and Saulnier votes for a time close to that date. 
        The date is derived from the travails of Agrippa the First, the brother of Herodias. According to Antiquities 18.6.1-4, Agrippa had been living in Rome since before the death of his father Herod the Great (4 BCE), and had become well acquainted with the family of the Emperor Tiberius. But when Agrippa's mother Berenice died he lost her sensible control over his free-spending nature and also her connections with the imperial family. In consequence he quickly ended up in debt. Agrippa had also lost his friend Drusus, Tiberius' only son, who had been poisoned in 23 CE, and Tiberius, out of his grief, cut off contact with his son's old companions. Agrippa quickly spent his money trying to keep close to the emperor and soon found himself in debt with no one to help him. 
        As a result, he left Rome to seek help with his family in Judea. But he grew suicidal, and only through the intervention of his wife Cypros and his sister Herodias was he persuaded to live on.. It is here that the reference to Herodias as wife of Herod the Tetrarch appears; the latter gives Agrippa an allowance for living expenses and a profitable job as a local director  of commerce. 
     Agrippa was now resourceful, and eventually became solvent again. When he did, he sailed back to Rome, in 36 CE, and once again made the acquaintance of Tiberius. 
      So the remark about Herodias can be  placed between 23 and 36 CE. But where in this range? Saulnier attributes Agrippa's departure from Rome as due to the death of Drusus. But it is the death of his mother Berenice that caused Agrippa his money problems, and we do not have a date for her demise.  The death of Drusus could have occurred years before, and Josephus might be mentioning it at this point only because it is logical,  not chronological. We simply don't know the time between Drusus' death and Agrippa's departure from Rome. 
    Saulnier offers a number of speculations about Herod's unexplained trip to Rome, the source of his enmity with Agrippa, etc. These do not, however, provide any new evidence that can be used for a chronology. 
    What we do know (Ant. 18.6.2 150)  is that "no great while" after Herod the Tetrarch gave Agrippa an allowance and a job, Agrippa attempted to alleviate his money woes by dealing with the Roman governor Flaccus; and that Flaccus was in power from 32 to 35 CE. This again supports the idea that it was the early 30's (31-35) when Agrippa came to Judea in debt, and so there is no evidence Herodias' marriage took place much earlier. 
    The event that limits the latest possible marriage date, the battle between Aretas and Herod, is then addressed by Saulnier. Josephus implied this battle occurred fairly soon after Herod's separation from Aretas' daughter; in between these two events,  John was executed (assuming he did criticize the new marriage as the gospels relate). Thus, Saulnier asks whether the date of this battle might have been well before the year 36 CE in which Josephus places it. 
    If we put aside more speculations, the concrete proposal Saulnier makes is that Josephus has confused the occasion of Vitellius' presence in Jerusalem for the Passover of 37 CE, when the news of Tiberius' death was received. Josephus states Vitellius was marching to attack Aretas on Tiberius orders following the battle with Herod; but Saulnier asks why Vitellius, stationed in Damascus, would march through Jerusalem to attack an Arab leader headquartered in Petra (Jordan)? Perhaps this is explained by the exact point of attack, which  is unknown,  but probabilities dictate that this  point has some weight. Instead, suggests Saulnier, Vitellius was in Jerusalem to keep control of matters after his removal of Pilate , which evidently occurred in February or early March of that same year 37 (because Tiberius had died by the time Pilate arrived in Rome). 
    To support this, Saulnier points out that Josephus records two visits by Vitellius to Jerusalem during a Passover, once when Pilate was removed (Ant. 18.4.3 90) and once when he was marching against Aretas. But these would have been the same Passover: both events are dated by Tiberius' death in 37.  He suggests Josephus separated a single event into two and was incorrect about the timing of Vitellius' attack against Aretas, which occurred, by this reasoning, prior to the Parthian war. The confusion is made plausible by Josephus' lack of good sources for the period and his general laxness with identifying the proper synchronicity and ordinality of events. 
    Against this idea of the mistaken Passover there are the following points:

  •      Josephus says that Vitellius "sent Marcellus to take charge of affairs in Judea" when Pilate was removed, not that Vitellius  went himself. We will have to suppose that this statement is inaccurate, too.
  •      A different report of Vitellius visiting Jerusalem (Ant. 15.11.4  405) seems to have been confused with the visit at Pilate's removal, as both involve the possession of the high priest's garments. So although there is an obvious confusion in the text, there are other resolutions than the suggested one: the visit at the time of Pilate's removal could have been confused with an earlier visit in 36 (as described in Louis Feldman's footnote in the Loeb edition). Saulnier has a rejoinder ready: that Vitellius was too busy with the Parthian war of 35-36 to make two visits to Jerusalem. In response to that, one can note that war was waged in summer months, so there was time in the winter for Vitellius to look over his territories.
  •      It is not impossible that two things occurred at the same time: the attack on Aretas and the removal of Pilate. If Saulnier wishes to argue that Vitellius could go to Jerusalem to take care of matters after removing Pilate, it seems one can further argue that he can combine two goals in one, by marching on Aretas through Judea. Perhaps that actually is the explanation for Vitellius' route against Aretas.
  •     The year 37, or 38,  was Josephus' birth year. He might have known something from his parents about what was going on in Jerusalem at this time. (On the other hand, such memories can also be the source of errors that one is most blind to.)

 

    Conclusions about Saulnier's Discussion

    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 of Herodias' marriage as occurring before the early 30's CE. The reader can choose between these alternatives according to his or her own predisposition. 
  
  
  
 

 Flavius Josephus Home Page



__________________
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