Why didn't Jesus write anything down?

[maximara]

Well, you are right about the continuity problems and retcons, of course. I agree that I wouldn't expect perfect continuity from a collection of stories from different authors that spanned about a millennium.

What I'm getting at though is that it's IMHO a myth that's remarkably hard to keep in one's head. I mean, people remember quite easily for example the stories about Hercules, although frankly they have no reason to. It's not like their afterlife depends on Hercules. Yet for Christianity even the people adamantly maintaining that Jesus was the perfect role model, and said the smartest things ever... seem to have trouble remembering what he actually said, and fill in their own gaps.

Or let's put it like this, because it's even more... fascinating for me. Imagine you exposed people to pieces of a story every bloody weekend, and they actually have some level interest in it, even a minimal one. Well, it's not an unreasonable prediction that they were remember it.

And sure enough, when you look at, say, Star Trek, you see people remembering what happened in this or that episode. I have people at work who aren't even big trekkies, and they still remember stuff like what Picard or Kirk said to this or that guy, or what Q did on one occasion, and so on.

Yet in the case of the Jesus fanfic we call the gospels, church-going people have been exposed repeatedly to the yet another rerun of, say, the sermon on the mountain, and still don't remember what was said in it. Oh, they think they do, but it's almost invariably a cherrypicked distortion. There are just too many contradictions and counter-intuitive elements for it to stick in. IMHO.

Or the Revelation is read a LOT to fundies hoping and expecting that their rapture will come any day now. And yet most people don't seem to remember even the most basic plot of it. I mean, I'm not even asking them to remember exactly which was the third church threatened by Jesus in it. But a lot of people seem to have trouble even remembering who is starting the attack on Earth.

I mean, if you exposed someone repeatedly to Star Wars episode 4, they'd probably remember if it was Alderaan who shot first at the Death Star or viceversa. You don't even need to be a fanboy to remember that kind of stuff if you've been made to sit through it enough times. But in Jesus's case, they have trouble remembering exactly that. Even self-professed Jesus fanboys have trouble remembering it. And that's kinda odd.

I'm guessing there is something about the story itself that makes it hard to remember right.

Anyway, that's not very relevant, I guess. And of course doesn't make Jesus real or anything. It was just my hypothesis for why polytheist stories tended to be the kind that's easier to remember. But, of course, I could be wrong.

I disagree. I doubt that most people could name all 12 labors of Hercules; sure they may know the lion (where he got his outfit), the cleaning out of stables using a river (recounted in a GI Joe cartoon of all places), the girdle of Hippolyta (thanks to Wonder Woman comics), and maybe the capture of Cerberus but who is going to know all 12?

Also I doubt anyone who has read all of Greek Mythology could tell you what the criteria to getting into the Elysium Fields were. By contrast Norse mythology seems to have had one criteria for getting into Valhalla--die in battle. On the other side of the spectrum what we know of Egyptian salvation was ridiculously complex (five to eight "parts" of the soul had to cared for and each had its own requirements.)-lots of luck sorting that piece of joy out.


Buddhism and Taoism by contrast don't even make getting into Heaven part of their things to do list...it, like Hell, is part the illusion that traps you on the Wheel of Life.

IMHO the real problem with Jesus is that much of his teachings are actually philosophy and-or parables.

As for Revelation...remember it is a vision and visions are rarely straightforward as shown in the OT about how Joseph is the only one who can correctly interpret Pharaoh's dream.

Richard Carrier in his Missouri State presentation called Revelation a "Five hour acid trip so bizarre if you actually made it into a movie it would actually outdo Eraserhead for the title of 'Most Annoying Weird Movie Ever Made'. It's basically the ramblings of a guy who has an hours long conversation with the dead spirit of Jesus who appears in the form of ********** up mutant that makes John Carpenter's The Thing look cuddly."

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

This is pretty much the best description of Revelation I have ever heard and explains why the thing makes no sense...visions and dreams rarely make sense.

 

[HansMustermann]

Heh, yes, I remember that presentation. Best description of Revelation ever

 

[maximara]

Heh, yes, I remember that presentation. Best description of Revelation ever

Its on youtube as well. Speaking of Carrier, his Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic blog states

"In fact, Wells is discussing a theory defended by others, and based in actual sources: Epiphanius, in Panarion 29, says there was a sect of still-Torah-observant Christians who taught that Jesus lived and died in the time of Jannaeus, and all the Jewish sources on Christianity that we have (from the Talmud to the Toledot Yeshu) report no other view than that Jesus lived during the time of Jannaeus."

This is a double whammy as I have previous presented the others reporting the same thing about Epiphanius (Carrier provides some of them--see below) so we are right back to the issue of if Jesus story was so well known why was this c100 BCE origin floating around?

Alvar Ellegård, Jesus: One Hundred Years before Christ (Overlook 1999)
Michael Wise, The First Messiah (Harper 1999)
Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (American Atheist 2003)
John Marco Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (Prometheus 1984).

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh geeze, we've been through that before. And it's getting tiresome.

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

-- Lewis Carroll, "The Hunting Of The Snark"​

Unfortunately, unless you can produce evidence that we are, in fact, in The Hunting Of The Snark and you are the bellman, repeating the same thing ad nauseam isn't going to make it true.

OR you could finally show the evidence that Epiphanius actually makes that assertion about any sect. It might be easier.

I'm sorry, but if I don't accept an argument from an authority who can't actually support his conclusion when it's for Jesus, it seems to me only intellectually honest to not just take a canned list of unsupported quotes against Jesus either. Or really for or against anything else.

Really, where is the evidence for that assertion? No, not just name-dropping and some quotes that aren't supported in any way. How do they reconcile it with Epiphanius saying point blank when his Jesus was born, and it being about 8 BC? What in Epiphanius's text have we missed?

I mean, sure, we could have missed something, but where is it? How does it work?

Heck, screw the 8 BC date, how do they get it that the good bishop of Salamis is talking about a sect believing that, when a plain reading of the Panarion seem to indicate that as being the mainstream orthodoxy's way of reconciling succession? Exactly what part of the text indicates even remotely that he's talking about a different sect? Show the evidence, not just hammer on that some guy or another had that conclusion. What did they base it on? Is there some phrase in either Greek or either English translation that supports that? What is it?

 

[maximara]

Oh geeze, we've been through that before. And it's getting tiresome.

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

-- Lewis Carroll, "The Hunting Of The Snark"​

Unfortunately, unless you can produce evidence that we are, in fact, in The Hunting Of The Snark and you are the bellman, repeating the same thing ad nauseam isn't going to make it true.

OR you could finally show the evidence that Epiphanius actually makes that assertion about any sect. It might be easier.

I'm sorry, but if I don't accept an argument from an authority who can't actually support his conclusion when it's for Jesus, it seems to me only intellectually honest to not just take a canned list of unsupported quotes against Jesus either. Or really for or against anything else.

Really, where is the evidence for that assertion? No, not just name-dropping and some quotes that aren't supported in any way. How do they reconcile it with Epiphanius saying point blank when his Jesus was born, and it being about 8 BC? What in Epiphanius's text have we missed?

I mean, sure, we could have missed something, but where is it? How does it work?

Heck, screw the 8 BC date, how do they get it that the good bishop of Salamis is talking about a sect believing that, when a plain reading of the Panarion seem to indicate that as being the mainstream orthodoxy's way of reconciling succession? Exactly what part of the text indicates even remotely that he's talking about a different sect? Show the evidence, not just hammer on that some guy or another had that conclusion. What did they base it on? Is there some phrase in either Greek or either English translation that supports that? What is it?

As I have pointed out before back in c180 CE Irenaeus claimed Jesus was 50+ years old when he was crucified in Against Heresies (impossible to fit in the at best c6 BC to 36 CE timeline generally assigned to Jesus) and compounded matters in Demonstration (74) by having Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE) and Agrippa I (42-44 CE) crucify Jesus under Claudius Caesar (41-54 CE). More over in Against Heresies Irenaeus claimed his 50+ year claim was "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify". So we know that Christ Fathers were willing to grab anything that supported whatever idea they were arguing at the time even if it totally contradicted other ideas they had presented.

Given the commonality of the name 'Jesus' in the time period (like John Smith in the USA today) why is the idea they there may have been another Jesus that was called 'christ', perhaps because he was a priest (literally anointed one) who had lived a century before and was revered by some group so much a problem?

Much of what we know about these groups come from their enemies so issues of propaganda abound but sadly theses account are for the most point all we have to work from.

 

[Brainache]

As I have pointed out before back in c180 CE Irenaeus claimed Jesus was 50+ years old when he was crucified in Against Heresies (impossible to fit in the at best c6 BC to 36 CE timeline generally assigned to Jesus) and compounded matters in Demonstration (74) by having Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE) and Agrippa I (42-44 CE) crucify Jesus under Claudius Caesar (41-54 CE). More over in Against Heresies Irenaeus claimed his 50+ year claim was "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify". So we know that Christ Fathers were willing to grab anything that supported whatever idea they were arguing at the time even if it totally contradicted other ideas they had presented.

Given the commonality of the name 'Jesus' in the time period (like John Smith in the USA today) why is the idea they there may have been another Jesus that was called 'christ', perhaps because he was a priest (literally anointed one) who had lived a century before and was revered by some group so much a problem?

Much of what we know about these groups come from their enemies so issues of propaganda abound but sadly theses account are for the most point all we have to work from.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and suggest that Irenaeus was perhaps not the world's greatest Historian.

 

[maximara]

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and suggest that Irenaeus was perhaps not the world's greatest Historian.

But then neither are the people who wrote the Gospels with social-political impossibilities. Even Acts is a historical cluster FUBAR as Carrier points out in his Missouri University presentation (on youtube) as it ignores things that would have been done.

David Pratt in his Who Was the Real Jesus? stated "In the 4th century the Christian saint Epiphanius gave a Christian genealogy in which Panthera is mentioned as the grandfather of Jesus. He even states that Jesus lived in the time of King Jannaeus, but then goes on to say that Jesus was born in 2 BCE, some 70 years after Jannaeus’ death! Epiphanius was trying to dispose of the Jewish tradition about Jesus by incorporating elements of it into his own (clearly fictional) account, apparently unconcerned by the blatant incongruity to which this gave rise."

Shirley Jackson Case in his 1912 The History of Jesus discussed the problem at length:

"Thus Epiphanius, as a witness for the pre-Christian date of Jesus and of Christianity, is a distinct failure. We have dwelt thus at length upon this subject because his assertion that Jesus was born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, his mention of pre-Christian Nazarees, and his suggestion of a connection between "Jesus" and "Therapeutes" seem to us to represent the most substantial data which the radicals have to offer in support of their position. [...]

'Then afterward a foreign king, Herod, and no longer those who were of the family of David, put on the crown; while in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is set up in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character.'

In this argument Epiphanius' chief interest clearly is dogmatical rather than historical. Thinking, as he does, that Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B. C.) was the last of the Jewish kings to combine in one person the offices of both king and high priest, he is led by his Old Testament proof-texts to assume that Jesus was the immediate successor of Alexander. Then Jesus must have been born during Alexander's reign. (Haer., LI, 22. Epiphanius apparently reckons the beginning of Augustus' reign from Julius Caesar's death in 44 B. C.) This is the logic of dogma. But with magnificent inconsistency Epiphanius returns to history and speaks of a gap extending from the time of Alexander to the time of Herod. [...] Epiphanius clearly was trapped by the logic of his dogmatic into suggesting that Jesus was born under Alexander."


I've been able to trace idea that Epiphanius put Jesus in the time of Jannaeus at least as far back as March 28, 1884 where it appears in Gerald Massey's "The Jesus Christ of out Canonical Gospels" in Spiritualism Vol XV No 730 so this issue has existed for a LONG time. I've seen people try to explain the problem away but no one denies that at one point Epiphanius does indeed put Jesus living during the time of Alexander.

 

[Craig B]

@maximara

You are in the habit of quoting sources from the 1880s to the early 1900s in respect of Epiphanius' chronology of Jesus, and have been taken to task for it in another thread. But it was argued most convincingly in that thread that Epiphanius as a matter of fact followed the orthodox view of this matter. May we have your comments on this?

ETA. You state that, "but no one denies that at one point Epiphanius does indeed put Jesus living during the time of Alexander". That is denied. It is denied in a thread in which you participated. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8857693&postcount=153.

 

[maximara]

@maximara

You are in the habit of quoting sources from the 1880s to the early 1900s in respect of Epiphanius' chronology of Jesus, and have been taken to task for it in another thread. But it was argued most convincingly in that thread that Epiphanius as a matter of fact followed the orthodox view of this matter. May we have your comments on this?

ETA. You state that, "but no one denies that at one point Epiphanius does indeed put Jesus living during the time of Alexander". That is denied. It is denied in a thread in which you participated. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8857693&postcount=153.

"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.

"...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)

"Jannaeus' crucifixion of eight hundred Pharisees left a particularly strong impression on the Jewish world...In this connection it is of interest that the dating of Jesus as a heretic who was put to death for misleading people about 100 BC, under Jannaeus, is 'one of the most persistent elements of the Jewish tradition concerning Jesus' and 'goes back to the floating mass of tradition' from which the Talmud drew. Mead allows that this dating may have originated as a result of controversy between orthodox Jews and Christians of Pauline type whose Christianity comprised a 'minimum of history and a maximum of opposition to Jewish legalism'." (Wells, George Albert (1975) Did Jesus Exist? Page 198

"In the 4th century the Christian saint Epiphanius gave a Christian genealogy in which Panthera is mentioned as the grandfather of Jesus. He even states that Jesus lived in the time of King Jannaeus, but then goes on to say that Jesus was born in 2 BCE, some 70 years after Jannaeus’ death! Epiphanius was trying to dispose of the Jewish tradition about Jesus by incorporating elements of it into his own (clearly fictional) account, apparently unconcerned by the blatant incongruity to which this gave rise." (Pratt, David (2001) Who Was the Real Jesus?)


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

Even Michael Thomas in his 2011 Jesus 100 B.c. admits that Mead's reading of the passage is essentially correct (pg 77-78) though like Case nearly 100 years before he tries to explain it as a theological point rather than actual historical point...which really doesn't make a lick of sense as the idea appears elsewhere as far as we can tell independently.

The years 1960, 1967, 1975, 1987, 2001, 2003, 2009, and 2011 are 'from the 1880s to the early 1900s in respect of Epiphanius' chronology of Jesus'?! You have a very weird definition of what falls into 1880s to the early 1900s.

As far as Eight-bit option goes I successfully refuted his claim "The existence of such a sect cannot be successfully inferred from what epiphanius wrote" by presenting several works of the mid to late 20th century as well a couple of the 21st. Nevermind that HansMustermann had pointed out Eight-bit's reading was off the wall bizarre back in post 100 of that thread.

Also you yet to answer my point of post 140 of that thread : Your Ad hominem attack doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by one of the most respected Academic Publications around--unless you have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a charlatan or insane publication which I think we would all love to see.

The argument to authority claim doesn't wash either as as far as I can see the scholars agree the passage is read that was but have different arguments as to why it is there.

 

[eight bits]

As far as Eight-bit option goes I successfully refuted his claim "The existence of such a sect cannot be successfully inferred from what epiphanius wrote" by presenting several works of the mid to late 20th century as well a couple of the 21st. Nevermind that HansMustermann had pointed out Eight-bit's reading was off the wall bizarre back in post 100 of that thread.

None of which changes what Epiphanius wrote. Epiphanius did not write that he believed that Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, nor did he write that anybody else believed it. We've been through it. Anybody who's interested can read the thread that's already been linked.

And "Brill Aacademic Pub" isn't a publication, it's a publisher.

 

[Craig B]

@ maximara

You can cite lunatics or charlatans like Blavatsky as much as you like, but you cannot state that

... no one denies that at one point Epiphanius does indeed put Jesus living during the time of Alexander

It is indeed denied. It was cogently denied in the thread to which you refer.

 

[HansMustermann]

As I have pointed out before back in c180 CE Irenaeus claimed Jesus was 50+ years old when he was crucified in Against Heresies (impossible to fit in the at best c6 BC to 36 CE timeline generally assigned to Jesus) and compounded matters in Demonstration (74) by having Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE) and Agrippa I (42-44 CE) crucify Jesus under Claudius Caesar (41-54 CE). More over in Against Heresies Irenaeus claimed his 50+ year claim was "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify". So we know that Christ Fathers were willing to grab anything that supported whatever idea they were arguing at the time even if it totally contradicted other ideas they had presented.

While it is true that Irenaeus did write that, and that church fathers seem to have no clue of the date or even year when Jesus was born or when he died, that doesn't make the case that Epiphanius believed that Jesus was born in the time of Alexander. What you seem to do is

A believed X
therefore
B believed Y

It's not even a syllogism or anything. It's at best a red herring.

It's not even a case of 'Irenaeus had no good data, therefore Epiphanius can't have had either', which might actually be supportable. You're assigning a specific belief to the bishop of Salamis that just doesn't follow from anything Irenaeus ever wrote either.

Given the commonality of the name 'Jesus' in the time period (like John Smith in the USA today) why is the idea they there may have been another Jesus that was called 'christ', perhaps because he was a priest (literally anointed one) who had lived a century before and was revered by some group so much a problem?

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a deformation of something or someone else who was viewed by some people as the messiah (i.e., Christ), an as the second coming of Joshua (i.e., Jesus; they were the same name.) Or whatever.

I mean, I gave an example myself earlier of someone cherished by the population as being connected to David's line via his mother, Mary, and his mother's supposed lover was called Joseph. And there may not have actually been sex between those two. And he was welcomed by the population as their next king and their saviour. And he was unjustly sentenced to death via a collusion of Jewish and Roman officials, BECAUSE of that. And if he had become king, it would have neatly solved the problem of Davidian succession. Hmm. Quite a bunch of coincidences there.

Be it as it may, just because such alternate solutions sound believable to me or you, it doesn't show that that's what the bishop of Salamis believed or ascribed to anyone.

Much of what we know about these groups come from their enemies so issues of propaganda abound but sadly theses account are for the most point all we have to work from.

There is that, of course. We just saw Epiphanius himself in the very same chapter confuse the Therapeutae with early Christians, so, yes, he probably did similar mistakes for the beliefs of other sects.

But what was asked was how do you support that specifically Epiphanius said specifically that one claim about Jesus being born under Alexander. The existence of OTHER distortions and false beliefs doesn't really make THAT point.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, just for the record, I do say that a plain text reading of either translation would logically place Jesus between Alexander and Herod. The only problem is that that's taking a succession argument to its logical conclusion, whereas where he did write a chronology, it's actually placing Jesus's birth in 8 BC.

It IS a problem.

But, unless someone can come with a better idea, I'm also content with the explanation that Epiphanius just didn't think his succession argument through and basically wrote nonsense there without even realizing what it actually points at. It's a common problem of his arguments, not to mention a common problem of bleating fanboys or apologists. They're not looking for foolproof logic, but to just say something that sounds like making their point and unilaterally proclaim victory, so their cognitive dissonance is resolved the way they need it resolved. They don't want to think it through, because it's exactly thinking through the stuff that trips one's cognitive dissonance that is uncomfortable.

 

[maximara]

Also, just for the record, I do say that a plain text reading of either translation would logically place Jesus between Alexander and Herod. The only problem is that that's taking a succession argument to its logical conclusion, whereas where he did write a chronology, it's actually placing Jesus's birth in 8 BC.

It IS a problem.

But, unless someone can come with a better idea, I'm also content with the explanation that Epiphanius just didn't think his succession argument through and basically wrote nonsense there without even realizing what it actually points at. It's a common problem of his arguments, not to mention a common problem of bleating fanboys or apologists. They're not looking for foolproof logic, but to just say something that sounds like making their point and unilaterally proclaim victory, so their cognitive dissonance is resolved the way they need it resolved. They don't want to think it through, because it's exactly thinking through the stuff that trips one's cognitive dissonance that is uncomfortable.

If it was just Epiphanius saying this I could agree but Carrier, Price and other are saying there was also this Jewish tradition of Jesus living during Jannaeus:

"And it’s astonishing that he would not know this, since several other scholars have discussed the sources that place Jesus in the reign of Jannaeus in the 70s B.C. Ehrman seems to think (and represents to his readers) that G.A. Wells just made this up (pp. 247-51). In fact, Wells is discussing a theory defended by others, and based in actual sources: Epiphanius, in Panarion 29, says there was a sect of still-Torah-observant Christians who taught that Jesus lived and died in the time of Jannaeus, and all the Jewish sources on Christianity that we have (from the Talmud to the Toledot Yeshu) report no other view than that Jesus lived during the time of Jannaeus. Though these are all early medieval sources, it nevertheless means there were actual Christians teaching this and that the Jews who composed the Babylonian Talmud knew of no other version of Christianity." (sic) (Carrier, Richard (2012) "Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic")

The "20 Reasons that Jesus Lived in the First Century B.C." quotes Abraham ben Daud of the 12th century: "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years." so it can be shown Carrier is not the only one reading the Jewish documents this way but it again leads us to the sticking problem:

Given how well Jesus history was stabilized in what would become mainline Christianity by c180 CE why would anyone hold that Jesus lived and died a hundred years earlier clear into the 1100s unless he was a legendary mythical persona that people were trying to connect to various vaguely remember teachers of the same name?

 

[maximara]

@ maximara

You can cite lunatics or charlatans like Blavatsky as much as you like, but you cannot state that It is indeed denied. It was cogently denied in the thread to which you refer.

Again your Ad hominem attack doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by one of the most respected Academic Publishers around--unless you have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a charlatan or lunatic publication which I think we would all love to see.

"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)

 

[maximara]

None of which changes what Epiphanius wrote. Epiphanius did not write that he believed that Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, nor did he write that anybody else believed it. We've been through it. Anybody who's interested can read the thread that's already been linked.

And "Brill Aacademic Pub" isn't a publication, it's a publisher.

Eight, IHMO claiming that Epiphanius in no way stated Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus is on par with Holocaust denial. People on both sides of the Christ Myth theory acknowledge the passage is read that way though they disagree as to why the passage is there.

Some say that the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu show a Jewish tradition saying Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Epiphanius latched onto this idea without understanding the chronological problems it had (Carrier, Richard (2012) Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic ) Abraham ben Daud of the 12th century noted that “The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years.”


Others (like Case and Efrón) claim that like Irenaeus before him Epiphanius was making a theological and-or philosophical argument and didn't realize the temporal snarls it caused.

The agreement is the passage is there and it read that way stated but we are again left with the why it is there.

 

[eight bits]

Eight, IHMO claiming that Epiphanius in no way stated Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus is on par with Holocaust denial.

However, Epiphanius didn't write that he believed that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus, nor did he write that anybody else believed it. Sources were given in the other thread, and discussion there dragged on far past any usefulness.

That you place disagreement about the fair reading of an obliquely composed ancient sentence fragment on a par with Holocaust denial only confirms the uselessness of engaging you further.

 

[maximara]

However, Epiphanius didn't write that he believed that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus, nor did he write that anybody else believed it. Sources were given in the other thread, and discussion there dragged on far past any usefulness.

Yes sources were provided that expressly state that Epiphanius did indeed write that that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus and several say that this came form the Jewish tradition.

Heck Carrier expressly states "Epiphanius, in Panarion 29, says there was a sect of still-Torah-observant Christians who taught that Jesus lived and died in the time of Jannaeus, and all the Jewish sources on Christianity that we have (from the Talmud to the Toledot Yeshu) report no other view than that Jesus lived during the time of Jannaeus. (Carrier, Richard (2012) "Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic")

NO source was provided that said that Epiphanius did not write this (Ehrman's delusion that “the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were recent events” is “the view of all of our sources that deal with the matter at all” was disproved by Carrier above and so doesn't count) only ones that made efforts to explain why it is there. Again IMHO claiming such a passage doesn't exist when it undoubtfully does as documented by Brill Academic Pub is akin to Holocaust denial.

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)

Efrón does try to explain this away as a theological argument based on other Church father view related "seventy weeks" of years according to Daniel which given that 70 weeks is only a year and 4.5 months makes no blasted sense. Making the weeks into years kind of works as that gets you to 6 BCE but IMHO smacks of creative accounting that would make Enron envious.


Case's 1912 efforts at addressing the Epiphanius passage makes a lot more sense and he also deals with other problematic passages but here we are told Epiphanius says that "Philo wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt" and yet no such treatise has ever been found--in fact the absence of Philo saying anything about Jesus has been a lightning rod for Christ mythers.

If such a treatise by Philo did exist why wasn't it preserved by the Christian community?

We are left with three possibilities:
1) the treatise so lambasted Christianity that it would have done more harm then good.
2) The treatise showed that Christianity pre-existed Jesus.
3) no such treatise ever existed and Church Fathers knowing Philo not mentioning Jesus was a problem made it up.

Eusebius in his The History of the Church went ever further claiming "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

So not only did Philo write a treatise Christianity in Egypt but he actually met Paul and yet writes not one word about Jesus. Sigh. When I read this kind of nonsense I reminded of Yahtzee's review of SimCity Societies which he describes as "a walled-off bubble society run by an omnipotent cretin."

 

[eight bits]

max

Yes sources were provided that expressly state that Epiphanius did indeed write that that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus and several say that this came form the Jewish tradition.

Another source provided was the modern Frank Williams translation of the Panarion, especially section 3 of part 29 of Book I, which all agree is the text under discussion. Among the places where this can be consulted on the web is:

http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29.

(Note that the final period or full stop is part of the URL.)

Carrier, in a recent whizzing contest with Bart Ehrman, made a comment which, if only it were accurate, would support your view. Carrier was little mentioned in the other thread, so it's fine if you'd like to amend that record here, adding him to the tailings pile of your quote mine.

Carrier's comment doesn't support your view, however, because insofar as it relates to the Panarion at all, his comment is inaccurate. That Carrier should misremember a detail which is peripheral to the point he was making isn't suprising, especially not in an unreviewed blog entry.

In any case, Epiphanius did not write about anybody's belief that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus. To place an opinion about a poorly composed fragment from an ancient book on a par with Holocaust denial is despicable.

 

[maximara]

max



Another source provided was the modern Frank Williams translation of the Panarion, especially section 3 of part 29 of Book I, which all agree is the text under discussion. Among the places where this can be consulted on the web is:

http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29.

(Note that the final period or full stop is part of the URL.)

Carrier, in a recent whizzing contest with Bart Ehrman, made a comment which, if only it were accurate, would support your view. Carrier was little mentioned in the other thread, so it's fine if you'd like to amend that record here, adding him to the tailings pile of your quote mine.

Carrier's comment doesn't support your view, however, because insofar as it relates to the Panarion at all, his comment is inaccurate. That Carrier should misremember a detail which is peripheral to the point he was making isn't suprising, especially not in an unreviewed blog entry.

In any case, Epiphanius did not write about anybody's belief that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus. To place an opinion about a poorly composed fragment from an ancient book on a par with Holocaust denial is despicable.

I addressed this particular piece of nonsense in post #97 of the Jesus Christ? thread:

I mean compare 3:3 Mead and Williams:

Mead:

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

Williams (29:3:3):

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.

BOTH versions agree with Mead's 1903 comment: "Nevertheless here we have the Bishop of Salamis categorically asserting, with detailed reiteration, so that there is no possibility of escape, that Jesus was born in the days of Alexander and Salina, that is of Jannai and Salome"

HansMustermann in post #97 of the Jesus Christ? thread stated "You are of course right. And as I was saying, not only that but seeing the two sentences that the two translations attached it to, it's very clear to me where that clause is in the original Greek, and that is in the middle. I.e., there is no sane or supportable way to take it and move it one sentence further down the line to support eight bits' reading. There is no more moving the coma that can be done sanely."

In post #100 of the of the Jesus Christ? thread HansMustermann bluntly stated "As Maximara already said, BOTH translations are naturally read as Jesus happening at the time of that change, and in fact the argument the good Bishop of Salamis makes would be blatantly bogus if that weren't the case."

There is no way to make your argument as even the Williams translation supports Mead's point. As I said before IMHO claiming 29:3:3 by Epiphanius does not state that Jesus lived during the time of Jannaeus is par with Holocaust denial. No matter how Epiphanius tried to sugar coat it 29:3:3 is a major Historical FUBAR and there is no escaping it.