Jesus Christ?

[maximara]

I dunno, Maximara... I still think that Epiphanius's text is more authoritative than any scholarly interpretation of it. And in the meantime it seems to me like the text just makes a hash of the argument that would put Jesus in 70 BC, as it does of most other arguments.

His argument about the continuity of succession would indeed require a Jesus in 70 BC or earlier, but it seems clear that elsewhere he didn't believe that. I.e., it seems more like his continuity of succession argument is just broken, rather than implying anything else.

Epiphanius doesn't seem to be particularly good at history, nor for that matter at propaganda. He's a bleating one-track-minded zealot, self-confessedly working off second hand rumours, plus he's got to stretch or even manufacture heresies to fit the number he chose for biblical considerations.

But scholarly interpretation of what Epiphanius wrote is what we have to go because most of us simply do not have the cultural framework required to read 4th century Greek and understand it.

Even if Epiphanius himself didn't believe the idea his writing do show the concept was there.

As for Epiphanius being a "bleating one-track-minded zealot' that can be argued that he is simply continuing the tradition set for by Irenaeus in Against Heresies c180 CE

As I have shown before Irenaeus is poor regarding history as well--he claims 50+ year old Jesus in what at best amounts 41 year period (c6 BCE to 36 CE; no year 0) and states that "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." (Demonstrations 75) an historical impossibility as I explain again below:

The key issue is the title "King of the Jews". When Herod the Great died his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea (4 BCE–6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BC - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE). Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power 41 CE. Furthermore, while some later books have called Herod Agrippa II "king of the Jews" he in truth never ruled over the Judea province. (Gelb, Norman (2010) Kings of the Jews: The Origins of the Jewish Nation pg 205)


So the only Herods close to the supposed life of Jesus (c6 BCE to c36 CE) that were "King of the Jews" (ie ruled the Judea province and had the actual title of king) were Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I. More over we have a reasonable history of Herod Agrippa I from 34 CE (death of John the Baptist) to his death in 44 CE:

1. Due to expressing the desire for Tiberius to hurry up and die so his friend Caligula could become emperor Herod Agrippa I was thrown in prison and not released until 37 CE when Caligula came to power. By that time Pontius Pilate had been replaced by Marcellus.

2. While Herod Agrippa I did come to Judea as governor in the final year of Caligula's rule (41 CE) he answered to Prefect Marcellus who in turn answered to Tetrarch Herod Antipas.

3. Due to Herod Agrippa I's advice Claudius became Caesar in 41 and as a reward a year later Marcellus and Herod Antipas were replaced by Herod Agrippa I resulting him being "like Herod the Great before him, king of the Jews." (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)


With this type of foundation is it any wonder Epiphanius historical knowledge comes off as poor to our eyes? If Irenaeus could "got to stretch or even manufacture heresies to fit the number he chose for biblical considerations" some two centuries before what incentive did Epiphanius have to do better? In fact if you really look at him, Irenaeus skills at propaganda are just as poor--resorting to a bunch of nonsensical mystical claptrap as to why there are only four Gospels.

If anything Epiphanius when viewed through the lens of Irenaeus is just a continuation of the Christian tradition of ignoring reality that continues to the present day.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, mind you, I'm not denying the rest of that. Yes, it seems pretty clear that by the time of Irenaeus things were still in flux, and even by Epiphanius's time, the sheer number of heresies he finds is telling. And yes, they did ignore reality wholesale. Just saying that it seems like Epiphanius himself doesn't seem to actually believe in the logical result of his argument for the continuity of succession.

 

[eight bits]

max

But scholarly interpretation of what Epiphanius wrote is what we have to go because most of us simply do not have the cultural framework required to read 4th century Greek and understand it.

Um, no. There is no dispute among the rest of us that the Williams translation is reliable*. The grammatical problem is not peculiar to Greek, because it arises in English in the same way and for the same reasons, as I showed in post 72. It is unsurprising that a variety of readers of an ambiguous sentence fragment will offer a variety of readings.

And so it is that "scholarly interpretation" presents us a diversity of views. As is obvious to whoever reads the thread, the handful of scholars trotted out to enlighten this dicey sentence fragment disagree among themselves about what it means. Some say Epihanius is reciting his own beliefs, but others see it as a trace of a Fourth Century heresy that dated Jesus far earlier than Pontius Pilate, with Epiphanius denying this to support black-letter orthodoxy.

You yourself have cited interpreters on both sides in support of your hypothesis. It cannot be both.

Your long-ago substantive claim was that there was a Christian sect living in the Fourth Century who taught that Jesus died before Pontius Pilate was born. You cited Epiphanius as providing us certain knowledge of this:

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE)

If it is now impossible, in your view, for us to determine the meaning of what Epiphanius wrote, then we are all in agreement that it is impossible for us to determine that meaning from what Epiphanius wrote.

Kumbaya.

======================

* Max, you do realize that "Brill Academic Pub," whom you "quote" as an authority in rebuttal to Craig in post 140 is, in fact, a publisher. They are the publisher of the Williams translation.

http://www.ubspress.com/details.php?id=3231146&type=

Apparently, then, we are all in agreement that they publish scholarly works. We must be in agreement, then, that Williams' translation counts as a scholarly interpretation.

 

[pipelineaudio]

If we toss out the parts of the jesus bio that were just straight copied from Homer, what sort of attributes do we have left to identify a historical jesus?

 

[davefoc]

If we toss out the parts of the jesus bio that were just straight copied from Homer, what sort of attributes do we have left to identify a historical jesus?

Which parts of the Jesus bio were straight copied from Homer?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Which parts of the Jesus bio were straight copied from Homer?

Well, assuming that Mark is the source of all the non paulinism stuff anyway, I'd start with "far flung fame" in the annointing, the entire cyclops/journey to gadara thing, the demons in the swine

 

[maximara]

max



Um, no. There is no dispute among the rest of us that the Williams translation is reliable*. The grammatical problem is not peculiar to Greek, because it arises in English in the same way and for the same reasons, as I showed in post 72. It is unsurprising that a variety of readers of an ambiguous sentence fragment will offer a variety of readings.

And so it is that "scholarly interpretation" presents us a diversity of views. As is obvious to whoever reads the thread, the handful of scholars trotted out to enlighten this dicey sentence fragment disagree among themselves about what it means. Some say Epihanius is reciting his own beliefs, but others see it as a trace of a Fourth Century heresy that dated Jesus far earlier than Pontius Pilate, with Epiphanius denying this to support black-letter orthodoxy.

You yourself have cited interpreters on both sides in support of your hypothesis. It cannot be both.

Uh Eight that last sentence makes no sense. If people on both sides of the historical debate can agree on what Epiphanius said then their positions on the matter of Jesus being historical become irrelevant.

Also you are falling into that old excluded middle problem the whole historical debate gets into--being historical is not a simple yes or no question.

Take the concept that Christopher Columbus sailed west to prove the earth was round. This statement is both historical and nonhistorical!

What Christopher Columbus did (sailed west) is historical but the reason he did so (to prove the earth was round) is nonhistorical.

Legendary myths (King Arthur and Robin Hood) may have a historical core but in some cases the exact nature of that core has been lost.

 

[eight bits]

max

Uh Eight that last sentence makes no sense. If people on both sides of the historical debate can agree on what Epiphanius said then their positions on the matter of Jesus being historical become irrelevant.

What they disagree about is what the passage means. "Both sides" referred to the immediately preceding paragraph in the post which you quoted. The two sides discussed there were:

The interpretation that the passage shows that Epiphanius taught a heterodox date

versus

The incompatible interpretation that the passage shows that other people taught the heterodox date, and Epiphanius taught against them.

The two interpetations contradict one another. The correct interpretation cannot be both. And, of course, it is neither. This has already been discussed here to death.

Why Christopher Columbus sailed west does not bear on your teaching, which was:

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE)

The existence of such a sect cannot be successfully inferred from what Epiphanius wrote. That some people have made such an inference anyway is nice to know, but isn't a reason for anybody else to agree with them. Some people, including people whom you have cited, disagree with them. Diversity of opinion is a routine aspect of scholarship. Diversity of opinion is not evidence that some one of the opinions is correct. It is surely not a sound basis for saying "we know" that some chosen opinion is correct.

You are, of course, entitled to your own view. If by we, you meant "maximara and those who agree with him," then of course you proved your case by asserting it. As long as we're clear that your "we" is not a claim of unanimity among those who have carefully considered the question, then there really isn't more for you and me to say about this, after all that has been said already.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

Thanks for the insight. I had thought that there was not from some time ago but I was just checking to see if anything new had developed in the past 5 -10 years. I read a book called the Pagan Christ that led me down this path 12 years ago and was wondering if anything had changed...?

Commerce ? Sterling Heights here m8, and so this is not a complete hijack I think Jesus was just a really cool guy back then, maybe like a Malcom X, or even a John F Kennedy. Back then someone with that much swag and way of words would command a lot of attention and maybe even have some stories Embellished that he was divine and could turn water into wine.

Who knows though it will never really have a definitive answer in a sense.

 

[Kirk]

Commerce ? Sterling Heights here m8, and so this is not a complete hijack I think Jesus was just a really cool guy back then, maybe like a Malcom X, or even a John F Kennedy. Back then someone with that much swag and way of words would command a lot of attention and maybe even have some stories Embellished that he was divine and could turn water into wine.

Who knows though it will never really have a definitive answer in a sense.

Hey neighbor! I used to live a little closer in Berkley. We should have a SE Michigan Festivus get together!

 

[davefoc]

The situation as I now understand it with regard to the Epiphanius quote.

Some writings of Epiphanius suggest that he believed that Jesus was born much earlier than in the time frame of the conventional story. However the writings that suggest this are somewhat ambiguous and other Epiphanius writings make it clear that he didn't believe that.

 

[Craig B]

The situation as I now understand it with regard to the Epiphanius quote.

Some writings of Epiphanius suggest that he believed that Jesus was born much earlier than in the time frame of the conventional story. However the writings that suggest this are somewhat ambiguous and other Epiphanius writings make it clear that he didn't believe that.

Exactly so.

 

[eight bits]

Some writings of Epiphanius suggest that he believed that Jesus was born much earlier than in the time frame of the conventional story.

No, some writings about Epiphanius say that he believed that Jesus was born much earlier than in the time frame of the conventional story. Other writings about Epiphanius say that he believed that there was a contemporary heretical sect who believed that Jesus, etc., and that Epiphanius disputed with them.

However the writings that suggest this are somewhat ambiguous

Word. Although the "writings" by Epiphanius that suggest this consist, in their entirety, of a single poorly composed sentence fragment.

and other Epiphanius writings make it clear that he didn't believe that.

Yes, other Epiphanius writings make it clear that he himself didn't believe that. However, Epiphanius didn't write, in these passages we've been most discussing, about anybody's beliefs about when Jesus was born.

The actual situation is that Epiphanius, writing about a heretical sect that had no special beliefs about when Jesus was born, made a digression in his critique. The purpose of the digression was to address a scriptual point: How could prophecies to David have been fulfilled if Herod (who wasn't even Jewish) had become King of the Jews, Jesus had never reigned as King of the Jews, and there was no King of the Jews at all in the Fourth Century?

Alexander Jannaeus comes up as a supposed "beginning of the end" of the Davidic throne as a temporal instituion, that is, AJ was the last man to hold both a kingship and also a priesthood, united, as temporal offices. The throne is not fully vacant until there is both a non-Davidic king and also a non-Davidic high priest, in Epiphanius' view. That first occurs during the reign of Herod the Great.

Jesus, born during Herod's reign, inherited the then-vacant throne of David, which became a solely spiritual institution distinct from both temporal crown (Herod) and temporal high priesthood (Herod's appointees).

Thus, Jesus completed during his life a process of transforming the character of Davidic succession which began when Alexander Jannaeus died, a process which ripened when Herod reigned and appointed non-Davidic high priests. The throne of David supposedly continues on Earth through the Church, which is headed spiritually by the still livng - and still reigning - Jesus, a Davidic king and priest.

Amen.

 

[maximara]

max



what they disagree about is what the passage means. "both sides" referred to the immediately preceding paragraph in the post which you quoted. The two sides discussed there were:

The interpretation that the passage shows that epiphanius taught a heterodox date

versus

the incompatible interpretation that the passage shows that other people taught the heterodox date, and epiphanius taught against them.

The two interpetations contradict one another. The correct interpretation cannot be both. And, of course, it is neither. This has already been discussed here to death.

Why christopher columbus sailed west does not bear on your teaching, which was:



The existence of such a sect cannot be successfully inferred from what epiphanius wrote.

BZZZZ wrong

"More astonishing still is the widespread Jewish and Jewish-Christian tradition, attested in Epiphanius, the Talmud, and the Toledoth Jescji (dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel), that Jesus was born about 100 BCE and was crucified under Alexander Jannaeus! " Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pg 40)

"Both of the passages from Epiphanius are highly significant in terms of placing the nativity of Jesus back in the days of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra-Salome..." (Thomas, Michael (2011) Jesus 100 B.C. - Page 78)

"Perahia's pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Perahia or Ben Tabai." (Efrón, Joshua (1987) Studies on the Hasmonean Period - Brill Academic Pub Page 158)

"For, Epiphanius in the fourth century actually traces the pedigree of his Jesus the Christ to Pandira, who was the father of that Jehoshua who lived and died at least a century too soon to be the Christ of our Canonical Gospels." (Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1960) Collected writings, Volume 8 Philosophical Research Society.

Furthermore, Mead's book is accepted as a valid reference in The Historical Jesus: Five Views a 2009 Christian work edited by James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy and printed by InterVarsity Press

Scholars on both sides of the Christ Myth theory and they ALL say the same thing--that Epiphanius put Jesus as living during the time of Alexander (Jannaeus). You can hem and haw and play your little word games but that fact cannot be challenged and I have even MORE.

"Epiphanius plumply asserts that Jesus ' was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Alexander, who was'of high priestly and royal race.' (Alexander is Alexander Jannaeus, 104-78 B.C.) " (Carpenter, J. Estlin (1889, 2006) The First Three Gospels: Their Origin and Relations - Page 353)

"...identification of the first (Essenic) Jesus of the gospels with Jesus ben Pandera is suggested by a surprising statement of the fourth-century orthodox Christian bishop Epiphanius of Salamis who says in his work against heresies that "Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the reign of Alexander [Jannaeus]" (American Council for Judaism Issues (1967) Volumes 21-22 - Page 8)

"We may call attention, however, to the fact that he brings out a very extraordinary statement made by Epiphanius that Jesus was born in the days of Alexander Jannaeus. " Theosophical Society (Great Britain) (1904) The Theosophical review - Volume 34, Issue 199 - Page 35)

Work after work supports the idea that Epiphanius talks about Jesus being born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE). Logically if Epiphanius himself did not hold to this idea then some sect must have...otherwise why would Epiphanius bring up the matter?

So we are left with

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE) and no amount of handwaving is going to change that FACT.

 

[eight bits]

max

That's swell. As I said in an earlier post,

You are, of course, entitled to your own view.

Thank you for clarifying that by "we" you meant "maximara and those who agree with him," and so, as I also said in that post,

As long as we're clear that your "we" is not a claim of unanimity among those who have carefully considered the question, then there really isn't more for you and me to say about this, after all that has been said already.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maximara, here's what Epiphanius says in the "On Incarnation" chapter:

1:1 Right on their heels came the arrival in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, which overtook these seven sects at Jerusalem; his power extinguished and scattered them. But then, after his sojourn, all of the later sects arose. I mean they arose after Mary had been given the good tidings at Nazareth by Gabriel and in a word, after the Lord’s entire sojourn in the flesh—or in other words, after his ascension.

1:2 For God was pleased that, for man's salvation, his own Son should descend and be conceived in a virgin womb although he was the Word from heaven, begotten in the bosom of the Father, not in time and without beginning but come in the last days; the divine Word truly begotten of God the Father, of one essence with the Father and in no way different from the Father, but immutable and unalterable, impassable and entirely without suffering, though he shared the suffering of our race.

1:3 He came down from heaven and was conceived, not of man's seed but by the Holy Spirit. He had truly received a body from Mary, for he had fashioned his own flesh from the holy Virgin's womb, had taken the human soul and mind and everything human apart from sin, and by his own Godhead united it with himself.

1:4 He was born in Bethlehem, circumcised in the cavern, presented in Jerusalem, embraced by Simeon, confessed in her turn by Anna the daughter of Phanuel, the prophetess, and taken off to Nazareth. The following year he came to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem

1:5 and arrived at Bethlehem borne in his mother's arms, because of (her) kindred (there). Once more he was taken back to Nazareth, and after a second year came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, borne by his own mother as before. And in Bethlehem he came to a house with his own mother and Joseph, who was an old man but was Mary's companion. And there, in the second year of his life, he was visited by the magi, was worshiped, received gifts,

1:6 and was taken to Egypt the same night because an angel had warned Joseph. He came back again from Egypt two years later, since Herod had died and Archelaus had succeeded him.

2:1 The Saviour was born at Bethlehem of Judea in the thirty-third year of Herod,1 the forty-second of the Emperor Augustus. He went down into Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod and returned from Egypt after Herod's death.

2:2 And so in the thirty-seventh year of that same reign of Herod, when Herod died after a reign of 37 years, the child was four years old.​

This would put the birth of Jesus around 8 BCE, and I guess make the time warp with Luke be about 14 years.

There is no sane way for Jesus to be born before the start of Herod's 37 years reign (never mind that 2:1 says otherwise anyway) and be only 4 years old when Herod died. (Well, short of some spaceship carrying him around at relativistic speeds in between the mentioned points in time)

The only way to maintain a Jesus born somewhere in the 70's BCE is basically if these other paragraphs saying otherwise are later interpolations and do not in fact reflect the views of the bishop of Salamis. Which would be possible, as the Christians did rewrite things wholesale, but do you have any evidence that it is so? Otherwise I'm forced to accept that the good bishop believed exactly what I quoted above.

 

[maximara]

Maximara, here's what Epiphanius says in the "On Incarnation" chapter:

1:1 Right on their heels came the arrival in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, which overtook these seven sects at Jerusalem; his power extinguished and scattered them. But then, after his sojourn, all of the later sects arose. I mean they arose after Mary had been given the good tidings at Nazareth by Gabriel and in a word, after the Lord’s entire sojourn in the flesh—or in other words, after his ascension.

1:2 For God was pleased that, for man's salvation, his own Son should descend and be conceived in a virgin womb although he was the Word from heaven, begotten in the bosom of the Father, not in time and without beginning but come in the last days; the divine Word truly begotten of God the Father, of one essence with the Father and in no way different from the Father, but immutable and unalterable, impassable and entirely without suffering, though he shared the suffering of our race.

1:3 He came down from heaven and was conceived, not of man's seed but by the Holy Spirit. He had truly received a body from Mary, for he had fashioned his own flesh from the holy Virgin's womb, had taken the human soul and mind and everything human apart from sin, and by his own Godhead united it with himself.

1:4 He was born in Bethlehem, circumcised in the cavern, presented in Jerusalem, embraced by Simeon, confessed in her turn by Anna the daughter of Phanuel, the prophetess, and taken off to Nazareth. The following year he came to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem

1:5 and arrived at Bethlehem borne in his mother's arms, because of (her) kindred (there). Once more he was taken back to Nazareth, and after a second year came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, borne by his own mother as before. And in Bethlehem he came to a house with his own mother and Joseph, who was an old man but was Mary's companion. And there, in the second year of his life, he was visited by the magi, was worshiped, received gifts,

1:6 and was taken to Egypt the same night because an angel had warned Joseph. He came back again from Egypt two years later, since Herod had died and Archelaus had succeeded him.

2:1 The Saviour was born at Bethlehem of Judea in the thirty-third year of Herod,1 the forty-second of the Emperor Augustus. He went down into Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod and returned from Egypt after Herod's death.

2:2 And so in the thirty-seventh year of that same reign of Herod, when Herod died after a reign of 37 years, the child was four years old.​

This would put the birth of Jesus around 8 BCE, and I guess make the time warp with Luke be about 14 years.

There is no sane way for Jesus to be born before the start of Herod's 37 years reign (never mind that 2:1 says otherwise anyway) and be only 4 years old when Herod died. (Well, short of some spaceship carrying him around at relativistic speeds in between the mentioned points in time)

The only way to maintain a Jesus born somewhere in the 70's BCE is basically if these other paragraphs saying otherwise are later interpolations and do not in fact reflect the views of the bishop of Salamis. Which would be possible, as the Christians did rewrite things wholesale, but do you have any evidence that it is so? Otherwise I'm forced to accept that the good bishop believed exactly what I quoted above.

There seems to be an issue of what Epiphanius himself believed and what some branch of Christianity believed.

You still have the issue of

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. . . . After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown. (Mead version)

For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (Williams)

This passage as shown via Robert Price, Brill Academic Pub, Michael Thomas, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky via Philosophical Research Society, James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, J. Estlin Carpenter, American Council for Judaism Issues, and Theosophical Society (Great Britain) is read as "Christian bishop Epiphanius of Salamis who says in his work against heresies that "Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the reign of Alexander [Jannaeus]"


I think what you have is the same problem here we have with Irenaeus c180 CE in that a Church Father gets so fixated on proving their point that they fail to realize they are talking nonsense.

There is simply no way for Irenaeus' point of Jesus being 50+ years old when he was crucified (Against Heresies 2:22:4) as we now think the timeline of Jesus was (c6 BC to c36 CE). More over apologists can't argue that is not what Irenaeus meant as Demonstrations (74) has Pontius Pilate connected with the wrong Herod (King of the Jews ie ruled the Judea province and had the actual title of king meaning either the Great or Agrippa I) and the wrong Caesar (Claudius) which only makes sense if he was pushing for a 50+ Jesus and don't cross check to see if it fited reality.


IMHO this is what Epiphanius did--he got so fixated on proving Jesus was the rightful successor of the princes from Judah that he latched on to the born during the time of Alexander idea (possibly from the Talmud which was written down around this time) without checking if what he latched on to matched his other points.

Which brings us back to my original point: based on what Epiphanius wrote and the contents of the Talmud we know that in the 4th century there was the belief that Jesus lived during the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, pretty much that's the point. Epiphanius -- like, indeed the tradition leading to him -- is trying too hard to make a case and doesn't even realize he's talking bollocks there, and makes a hash of it

 

[eight bits]

max

Which brings us back to my original point: based on what Epiphanius wrote and the contents of the Talmud we know that in the 4th century there was the belief that Jesus lived during the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

Unfortunately, your original point was:

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE) ...

As to your new point, nobody here has disputed that the Babylonian Talmud includes several references to what may be "alternative Jesus" figures, among them a possible contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus. However, that would, if the uncertainties surrounding those passages were resolved most favorably to your view, at best show the existence and transmission of Jewish stories through Jewish channels about such figures, not Christian belief or sources for them.

On the possibility of suitable Jewish channels stemming from or running through the Fourth Century, Epiphanius can certainly be cited as a witness to hostile relations between Christians and Jews during his lifetime, broadly distributed. He recites a lengthy, big-canvas, lurid tale on point that he was supposedly told by the Jewish convert Josephus of Tiberias (mentioned in passing here at post 106, see Panarion Book I, part 30, sections 4 and following).

It is easy to imagine Jewish counterapologetic tales flourishing in the same milieu as gave birth to this Josephus of Tiberias story. There is no reason why some of those same Jewish tales might not also be found some generations later in the Babylonian Talmud. However, there is also no reason to think that the Babylonian Talmud, so interpreted, accurately reflects the view of any Christian of any century about Jesus' life. Nor does Epiphanius offer support for such thinking.

 

[maximara]

max



Unfortunately, your original point was:



As to your new point, nobody here has disputed that the Babylonian Talmud includes several references to what may be "alternative Jesus" figures, among them a possible contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus. However, that would, if the uncertainties surrounding those passages were resolved most favorably to your view, at best show the existence and transmission of Jewish stories through Jewish channels about such figures, not Christian belief or sources for them.

On the possibility of suitable Jewish channels stemming from or running through the Fourth Century, Epiphanius can certainly be cited as a witness to hostile relations between Christians and Jews during his lifetime, broadly distributed. He recites a lengthy, big-canvas, lurid tale on point that he was supposedly told by the Jewish convert Josephus of Tiberias (mentioned in passing here at post 106, see Panarion Book I, part 30, sections 4 and following).

It is easy to imagine Jewish counterapologetic tales flourishing in the same milieu as gave birth to this Josephus of Tiberias story. There is no reason why some of those same Jewish tales might not also be found some generations later in the Babylonian Talmud. However, there is also no reason to think that the Babylonian Talmud, so interpreted, accurately reflects the view of any Christian of any century about Jesus' life. Nor does Epiphanius offer support for such thinking.

The problem is "Christian" strictly means follower of Christ. This means that since Christ was a title that you could have "Christians" that followed any of the would be Christs running around.

Paul himself noted there were other Jesus and other Gospels (2 Corinthians 11:4) and according to Michael Wise the Teacher of Righteousness called himself Messiah (Christos in Greek) meaning that any followers he may have had would have been "Christians".