Jesus Christ?

[maximara]

Hans, the passage doesn't say that Jesus was born in or during the times of Alexander. Your misreading is not evidence for anything. That's the only issue, Hans. As I mentioned several posts ago, the entirety of the work was posted by me. Who cares can read it and decide for themselves.

Eight, I honestly don't know how you can claim this without ignoring the relevant parts of the passage:

"Now the throne and kingly seat of David is the priestly office in Holy Church; for the Lord combined the kingly and high-priestly dignities into one and the same office, and bestowed them upon His Holy Church, transferring to her the throne of David, which ceases not as long as the world endues. The throne of David continued by succession up to that time - namely, till Christ Himself - without any failure from the princes of Judah, until it came unto Him for whom were 'the things that are stored up,' who is Himself 'the expectation of the nations.' 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." Epiphanius (Haer., 29)

Epiphanius clearly shows that there was a sect of Christianity in the 4th century that believed Jesus lived "in the days of Alexander". In fact Mead in his 1903 book Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? touches on this passage by Epiphanius:

"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: not only so, but he would have it that it needs must have been so, in order that prophecy, and prophecy of the most solemn nature, should be fulfilled that there should be no break in the succession of princes from the tribe of Judah, as it had been written."

Face it people, the only way this argument holds water if we go into some Orwellian doublespeak where left is right, up and down, and I think everybody gets the idea.

Everything seems to point to Jesus being at best being some shadowy legendary personage who in some sects was given more recent historical trappings.

As pointed out before Irenaeus c180 stated in Demonstration (74) "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."


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.

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) 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:

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.

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.

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)

More over in Against Heresies 2:22:4 Irenaeus went on about how Jesus could have been no younger then 46 and more likely was 50+ when he was crucified. In fact the very title of Chapter 22 of Against Heresies is "The thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his thirtieth year: he did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was more than fifty years old when he died"

Now try to fix 50 years into the generally accepted c6 BC to c36 CE period and you see the problem.

Jesus's Gospel story feels akin to talking about a President Franklin "Teddy" Roosevelt who despite suffering from polio led solders up Kelly's Hill, founded the national park system while leading the United States through the Great Depression and died mere months before the US' victory in WWII.

This is a composite President Roosevelt that despite being based on the two presidents having that name never existed. Much the same seems to be true of the Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Again when we talk about Jesus we need to set what the criteria of what we are kicking around:

some vague teacher who was transformed by followers to the point the Gospel version and real man are only similar in name.

a legendary-mythical person woven together with stories of a more resent teacher of the same name.

This is not a simply he did or did not exist.

While based on a historical person Shakespeare's Richard III in a sense did not exist nor did the Christopher Columbus who sailed west to prove the Earth was round.

 

[Craig B]

@maximara

No doubt rightly, you tell us

Epiphanius clearly shows that there was a sect of Christianity in the 4th century that believed Jesus lived "in the days of Alexander".

The question is not whether there was such a sect, but whether Epiphanius himself believed this, and whether he considered such a belief to be orthodox.

 

[maximara]

@maximara

No doubt rightly, you tell us The question is not whether there was such a sect, but whether Epiphanius himself believed this, and whether he considered such a belief to be orthodox.

These points were addressed beginning with the VERY NEXT SENTENCE WHICH YOU SNIPPED:

In fact Mead in his 1903 book Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? touches on this passage by Epiphanius:

"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: not only so, but he would have it that it needs must have been so, in order that prophecy, and prophecy of the most solemn nature, should be fulfilled that there should be no break in the succession of princes from the tribe of Judah, as it had been written."


These points were already addressed and in a private message resulting from my lamentation that "It is times like this I wish the membership TOS had a willful quoting other members out of context clause to make people less inclined to pull this kind of nonsense." it was pointed out that "Editing other posters quotes without noting it will get you a nastygram from the mods."

If you can't be honest about what we are really saying then perhaps it is time to bring the mods in on this.

 

[eight bits]

max

Eight, I honestly don't know how you can claim this without ignoring the relevant parts of the passage:

You rely on the same "translation" as Mead (1903) did. Unfortunately, the question before us is what Epiphanius taught, not what the Theosophists taught about Epiphanius.

My treatment of the larger passage appears chiefly in my post # 49. I cited the translation of Epiphanius which I used and quoted from. I have nothing to add to my analysis of it at this time.

 

[Craig B]

These points were addressed beginning with the VERY NEXT SENTENCE WHICH YOU SNIPPED:

In fact Mead in his 1903 book Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? touches on this passage by Epiphanius: <snip>

If you can't be honest about what we are really saying then perhaps it is time to bring the mods in on this.

I hardly think my observation calls for such a response. I don't necessarily accept Mead's view of Epiphanius. But at all events I am simply noting what seems to me to be an issue; it is not my intention to be dishonest, or to impugn the honesty of others.

ETA. I strive to justify my own views on Epiphanius and his chronology of Jesus in my post #61, With reference to the Alexander Janneus passage, and a note on his implicit chronology of Jesus' brother Jude. Any comment on the latter point, in addition to the valuable one already made by Hans, would be gratefully received. Unless I've missed one, for which I apologise in advance.

 

[Beady]

I hope this isn't too much of a side-track. Reading through this thread, I kept thinking along the lines of, "If a Messia inhabited the past, but no one wrote about him at the time, did he make a noise?" Or, from the other direction, "If no Messiah inhabited the past, but someone claimed that he did, how big a noise can he make?" Seems to me that the actual historical facts are completely irrelevent, and this is one prime illustration that The Truth (tm) often doesn't matter.

 

[HansMustermann]

Regarding Epiphanius, it's starting to seem to me like the problem we have is that the two translations moved the words around in different ways. Which is actually normal. Koine Greek had a different grammar than modern English, and word order was not only more liberal, but even the most common order was pretty WTH by modern English standards. I.e., a word for word translation would sound like Yoda on crack

So to resolve it we'd probably need to go back to the Greek original and see there where the heck does that "in the time of" attach.

Unfortunately, at a quick googling I can't find a good greek version, or not without paying for a mambership. Which kinda sucks.

Any of you historians have access to one and can do us a favour by transcribing that verse? It would be very much appreciated.

At a wild and semi-informed guess, though, if one translation attaches it to one sentence and the other to the next one, that construct can only be in the middle, between the two sentences. Hence, pushing it even further right to yet another sentence would make no sense.

But as I was saying, we'll only know if someone can find the greek version.

 

[eight bits]

Hans

So to resolve it we'd probably need to go back to the Greek original and see there where the heck does that "in the time of" attach.

Who's "we," Hans? You? Resolve what? A claim you made, citing no source?

Let's review:

Max claimed there was a 4th Century sect that believed Jesus was not only born, but crucified by no later than 76 BCE.

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) so like Robin Hood (the oldest ballads have him combating "King Edward") you may have a time shift going on with biographical details made up to make the story fit.

His "source" now turns out to be a 100+ year-old Theosophist monograph. The theory has had enough time to attract adherents, why hasn't the theory caught on among any other scholars?

Anyway, you straightened max out in post 46. No sect (you got that right). You also backed off the crucifixion (good choice) and just claimed born.

Just to make it clear and avoid confusion, Epiphanius isn't saying that some heretical sect is claiming a Jesus in 76 BC. HE himself, a mainstream Christian writing against heresies, is saying that Jesus was born at that time. He's writing that against some heretics which didn't think so

And now you say it's ambiguous. It turns out that you don't know "where the heck" the phrase "attaches."

Why don't you just say that? You don't know whether what you claimed about Epiphanius is true or not.

 

[HansMustermann]

Calm down, Beavis. I was going by a translation too, just like you and Maximara. I'll ignore the nonsense of claiming that somehow it was without citing a source, when I mentioned the Panarion and the exact verse numbers. WTH more do you want?

Now I want to know which translation is right, and yes, if it's as ambiguous to allow you to bump it one more sentence down the line. Yes, I don't know if it is, but that's what I'd like to know.

Ultimately I think it's important to know what the original says, rather than what artifacts one translation produced compared to another. It kinda matters what he actually wrote, if we're going to claim being right or wrong, by virtue of semantic arguments about his phrasing. Then the syntax that matters and whose parsing would resolve the whole "did not"/"did too" bickering is the Greek one.

And I don't see why you'd object to that. If your strange semantic interpretation is right, surely the original text can only support it, right?

I'll also ignore the argumentum ad numerum for now.

Also I don't see why it's important that I corrected one mistake of Maximara so far. Especially since that correction still doesn't make your case. But anyway, since Maximara and I are not the same person, nor is it the purpose to choose one of you two, I really don't see how that conflicts with wanting to know what does the original text actually say. It seems to me like the last one would be far more interesting than just taking a side between you two.

ETA: but if it still confuses you, no, I don't think there was anything ambiguous about it at the time. In fact I still don't see how a construct that essentially says, "before X, Y happened, while after X, Z happened" can be parsed in good faith as X happening after Z. And it's probably symptomatic that so far you've only had weird semantical arguments, No True Scotsman, or now the argumentum ad numerum. All I'm doing now is I'm willing to allow for the possiblity of your being right, if it turns out that the original line is laid out in a way I can't even imagine, given the translations. One would think you'd appreciate that, rather than take offense

 

[davefoc]

...
And now you say it's ambiguous. It turns out that you don't know "where the heck" the phrase "attaches."

Why don't you just say that? You don't know whether what you claimed about Epiphanius is true or not.

It looks to me like his position is that he doesn't know. I don't know that he needs to be any more specific than that to make his position clear. There are one or two people that know Greek that have participated in these HJ threads. Maybe they could weigh in at this point, if a reliable source of the original Greek can be found easily.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

It looks to me like his position is that he doesn't know.

Hans made his answer. Yes, it is obvious that Hans doesn't know now, and that he didn't know when he first posted, either.

There are one or two people that know Greek that have participated in these HJ threads. Maybe they could weigh in at this point, if a reliable source of the original Greek can be found easily.

Great idea. I proposed (at post 74) that people should look and see for themselves. Hans' response was that that wouldn't cut it. Glad to hear we're all singing a different tune now. In the meantime, however long that is, we already have Frank Williams' translation. It is professional and well received in scholarly circles. There is no suspense about what the Greek says.

Moreover, Hans was willing enough to discuss the Williams translation, and found support for his position there. He even quoted from it approvingly in his post 57:

But, heck, even without reading the whole chapter, 3:3 clearly says "but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander" It's a clear sentence, not some eldritch allegory. "In the time of Alexander" is clearly "after [Christ's] birth", i.e., Jesus HAD to be born before Alexander died. You can't make that make sense with a Jesus born towards the end of Herod's reign, because that reverses the order of events Epiphanius describes.

Despite the drama, very little has changed since then in the evidence before us. Craig B had discussed and quoted from the Mead translation in his post 51. Max's recent post about Mead wasn't news. Given his choice, Hans quoted Williams, and said that was clear.

And what was clear? What the heck "in the time of" meant. Now it's supposedly unclear.

Sure. Maybe third time's the charm.

Anyway, Epiphanius didn't write that Jesus was born before Herod's reign. Nor was he writing about a sect that did, since that has come up.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hans made his answer. Yes, it is obvious that Hans doesn't know now, and that he didn't know when he first posted, either.

The only thing I did say is that I don't know IF THE GREEK ORIGINAL is having a different twist. And I don't, obviously, since I've never seen the Greek original so far. BUT considering that YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER, it seems to me a bit silly to make such a fuss about what Hans doesn't know. If lack of knowledge about THAT would mean someone isn't qualified for this talk and/or needs to shut up, then, you know, you're exactly in the same boat I am.

And, yes, I'm pretty sure you don't know either. If you did, you could just point out what it says, instead of making this BS ad-hominem prom-queen drama.

Mind you, it would still be an ad-hominem -- like you tried a page ago too -- and thus fully irrelevant, but still at least not half as hilarious as trying to make an ad-hominem out of something where you're in the same boat. 'Hey! Look, everyone! Hans doesn't know something I don't know either!' Heh.

Great idea. I proposed (at post 74) that people should look and see for themselves. Hans' response was that that wouldn't cut it.

What I actually said is that you can't waiver your burden of proof by just saying other people should look at it. If YOU claim a conclusion, YOU explain how YOU get there. You don't get to hand it over to someone else.

Of course, that doesn't preclude other people reading it too, but no matter how many do that, YOU get to support YOUR claims.

And I still stand by that, really. It's just basic skepticism and basic logic, after all.

Glad to hear we're all singing a different tune now.

I'm not. You're just trying to distort what I actually said.

In the meantime, however long that is, we already have Frank Williams' translation. It is professional and well received in scholarly circles. There is no suspense about what the Greek says.

Wait, wait, weren't you berating me (based on your own inventing BS about what I actually said) for supposedly telling people to not look at the original for themselves in message #76? And you're doing WHAT now? Exactly arguing why we don't need to look at the original for ourselves?

Heh.

Moreover, Hans was willing enough to discuss the Williams translation, and found support for his position there. He even quoted from it approvingly in his post 57

And I still am.

But that still doesn't preclude wanting to see what the Greek original says, especially if your argument seems to rest only on parsing the syntax weirdly. And especially for an argument that rests on syntax, it makes sense too, to see if the original syntax actually supports that or it's just an artefact of the translation.

Ultimately, no matter how good any translation may be, the word order HAS to be altered to get an English text that doesn't read like a dyslexic Yoda. Trust me, Koine Greek word order pretty literally reads like Yoda speak, unless you rearrange the words. Hence arguments resting on word order, and which sentence does a "in the time of" clause attach to, are inherently a lot shoddier when done on a translation than on the original.

Despite the drama,

If you don't like drama, just stop doing it. I only suggested doing the proper scholarship thing and looking at what the original says. It's not some radical subversive idea, but really the normal kind of thing that scholarship of almost anything from that era involves. The only drama is the one you're doing about it. You can stop it whenever you wish, you know?

very little has changed since then in the evidence before us. Craig B had discussed and quoted from the Mead translation in his post 51. Max's recent post about Mead wasn't news. Given his choice, Hans quoted Williams, and said that was clear.

I still say that the meaning of that translation is clear and really supports Maximara's read in BOTH translations, but the Greek original is still the ultimate authority there and, who knows, it might actually prove you were right all along. Plus, see below.

And what was clear? What the heck "in the time of" meant. Now it's supposedly unclear.

Actually, I still don't think it's unclear. In fact the choice of where to attach that clause in the two translations, gives me a very good idea for where those words might be in the original. It must be between the two sentences so you can possibly read it as the ending of one or the beginning of the next one. But I'm willing to allow for the possibility that the Koine Greek original might possibly be mangled enough to support your reading of it.

As I was saying, one would think you'd appreciate that I'm willing to go the extra trouble to see if you've got a point after all. It's not often that I spend a few hours and am willing to slog through Greek just to try to prove the opponent right.

Sure. Maybe third time's the charm.

Anyway, Epiphanius didn't write that Jesus was born before Herod's reign. Nor was he writing about a sect that did, since that has come up.

That, I'd say, remains to be seen.

 

[eight bits]

And, yes, I'm pretty sure you don't know either.

Hans, I cited my sources. You generally don't, and you didn't here. When I do cite my sources, it's not Wikipedia or a 1900's fringe religious tract.

The long and the short of it, Hans, is that there is no earthly reason for anybody to think that Epiphanius did not know when his church claimed Jesus lived. Your saying he didn't is not evidence. Your say so it is not a reason for thinking it is so.

Like so many other peddlers of junk scholarhip on the web, you are now down to "It's not absolutely impossible that I'm right," and you're digging in there.

Fine. You have dug your hole, and you are welcome to it.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hans, I cited my sources. You generally don't, and you didn't here. When I do cite my sources, it's not Wikipedia or a 1900's fringe religious tract.

Considering that so far, as you yourself have just said yesterday, I worked by the same Williams translation as you did -- and I'd add AGAIN that I did provide chapter and verse numbers -- I'm not sure what your point is. And again, the thing which you accuse me of not knowing, like that was something that's somehow disqualifying, is the original Koine Greek phrasing which you still don't know either. If there's anything wrong with my sources, then considering they were the exact same as yours, it would seem to me like you're in the exact same boat.

Even by the standards of yet another Internet prom-queen who's trying to win some imaginary popularity contest by attacking me instead of having a sound argument, it's getting ridiculous when you're manufacturing some shortcomings for which you qualify too. I'm pretty sure that that's by definition hypocrisy.

Plus, it's utterly illogical to both (A) argue that the Greek original is irrelevant, and at the same time, (B) rail against my not knowing it. Never mind that you don't that either, or that it's an ad-hominem anyway, but make up your mind, dude. Either it's irrelevant OR it's a problem that I don't know it. You can't have both. If it's irrelevant and not needed for the debate, then lacking it can't be a problem.

Plus, it would be nice if you stopped flat out lying about me or my sources. Again, I provided exact chapter and verse numbers, same as you did, and I quoted the relevant part for my point. And it was from the same translation you used, not from Wikipedia. I'd also add that the first who introduced an argument based on 'it's not clear' was YOU in message #72, not me, so now railing against that supposed shortcoming of mine is hypocritical. Or that the only person so far who's arguing against going to a source is you, not me on the previous page. Just lying about what I did is lame anyway, but is also dumb when anyone can just hit the previous page and see what I actually said.

But even without that, you know, some honesty would be appreciated for a change.

The long and the short of it, Hans, is that there is no earthly reason for anybody to think that Epiphanius did not know when his church claimed Jesus lived. Your saying he didn't is not evidence. Your say so it is not a reason for thinking it is so.

Neither are your arguments from personal incredulity, argumentum ad numerum, No True Scotsman (or in your case No True Nicean), accusing me of quoting out of context without actually showing (and in fact steadfastly refusing to show) exactly what context changes it, ad-hominem attacks, and the rest of your prom-queen drama act.

Like so many other peddlers of junk scholarhip on the web, you are now down to "It's not absolutely impossible that I'm right," and you're digging in there.

Fine. You have dug your hole, and you are welcome to it.

And again you lie about what I actually said. It was never down to "It's not absolutely impossible that I'm right," but to considering some rather improbable circumstances in which YOU might be right and being willing to check them. In spite of your stringing just a bunch of fallacies so far, so you know, I'd have no reason to take your nonsense seriously anyway. Keeping an open mind is not even remotely the same as "It's not absolutely impossible that I'm right," so, you know, you can stop lying now.

And again, it's kinda dumb when it's on a public forum where everyone can see what I've actually said.

There is a difference between even being yet another pseudo-intellectual Internet prom-queen and being dishonest too. I'm pretty sure that your flat out lying about me instead of supporting your point moves you to the latter.

But, as you say, you're welcome to your hole. Enjoy it.

 

[maximara]

max



You rely on the same "translation" as Mead (1903) did. Unfortunately, the question before us is what Epiphanius taught, not what the Theosophists taught about Epiphanius.

My treatment of the larger passage appears chiefly in my post # 49. I cited the translation of Epiphanius which I used and quoted from. I have nothing to add to my analysis of it at this time.

Your translation basely says the same thing the version Mead used:

"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, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock."

This passage makes even clear then the one Mead used that after Jesus birth "in the time of Alexander" "the order ended and was altered" to where it ended.

No matter how you try to handwave it Mead's "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: not only so, but he would have it that it needs must have been so, in order that prophecy, and prophecy of the most solemn nature, should be fulfilled that there should be no break in the succession of princes from the tribe of Judah, as it had been written." still applies

In fact, it is even more clear in the version you are using then the one Mead used over 100 years ago.

 

[maximara]

Regarding Epiphanius, it's starting to seem to me like the problem we have is that the two translations moved the words around in different ways. Which is actually normal. Koine Greek had a different grammar than modern English, and word order was not only more liberal, but even the most common order was pretty WTH by modern English standards. I.e., a word for word translation would sound like Yoda on crack

True but it not like we are dealing with German which in English can result in 'I throw my self down the stairs a bucket'.

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:

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"

No amount of tap dancing will change this fact.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

But, hey, I'm trying to be open minded here. Much as it's getting increasingly hard, when someone's argument is starting to consist only of lying about me in third person.

 

[eight bits]

Yeah, it is a drag when you get caught making an absurd claim with nothing to back it up. But I'll bet you get that a lot.

You said you went by a translation, back in post 90.

What translation was that, Hans, the one that you used as the basis for your post 46?

That's an easy question. One line will cover it nicely.

Or you call always just keep calling me a <snip>. Nobody will notice if you change the subject.

 

[HansMustermann]

It was the Williams translation, the same one you linked to afterwards. (Though from a different site. But same text.)

Not that it would matter. 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.

Of course, I'll still call you a BS-er, because I've made it clear repeatedly and again you act as if that was something that came out of thin air.