On another thread in the eschatology forum the subject has come up of false christs and false prophets who performed signs and wonders during the time period of anno domini 30-70 as per Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22.

As I did not wish to disturb the tranquil and docile tone of the proceedings on that thread (), I decided to start a new thread.

I would like to bring to the attention of the forum two individuals who fit the bill. But first our passage, Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22:

For there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

1.

The first individual that I would like to mention is Simon Magus, first mentioned in Acts 8.9-24, but prevalent thereafter in church tradition. It was on the heels of Simon Magus that Peter supposedly first made his way to Rome.

Simon certainly qualifies as a false prophet. He probably also qualifies as a false christ. At any rate, his magical arts in Acts 8.11 did not cease at his baptism in 8.13. According to church tradition, after his defection from the faith he went to Rome and passed himself off as a god. What means did he use to do so? Eusebius tells us in his History of the Church 2.15.1, 3:

But faith in our savior and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men, the enemy of the salvation of man contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the abovementioned Simon, aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

[Now citing Justin Martyr:] And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said that they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you [Romans] to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue: Simoni deo sancto, that is: To Simon the holy god.

Justin Martyr, as cited by Eusebius, is probably confused about that statue. Nevertheless, those deceitful Satanic arts endeared Simon to many Romans, and he was considered a god.

2.

The second individual that I would like to discuss is one that is often overlooked in lists of false christs in the years 30-70. Indeed I myself overlooked him for some time. This person is the emperor Vespasian.

In order for him to qualify as a fulfillment of Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22, I have to show that Vespasian was both a false christ (for I do not think that any would call him a prophet of any kind, whether true or false) and a worker of wonders. I shall do both, with the simple caveat that our two parallel verses from Olivet do not say that the false christ cannot be a reluctant one.

First, that Vespasian was a false christ is evident from his first interchange with Josephus the historian. During the war, Josephus commanded Jewish troops in Galilee before being captured by the Romans. Vespasian was commander, not yet emperor, and not in any dynastic line to be emperor. Josephus saved his own skin with the following words to his captor (Josephus, Wars 3.399-408):

You, Vespasian, reckon that you have taken Josephus captive, and this only, but I have come to you as a messenger of better things. For I have not been sent before you by God to know the law of the Jews, and how it befits generals to die. Do you send me to Nero? But why? Do those after Nero, his successors until you, remain? You are Caesar, Vespasian, and autocrat, you and this boy of yours. But bind me now more securely, and keep me to yourself, for you are Caesar not only of me, but also of land and sea and all the race of men, and I must for punishment be under greater custody, if I affirm rashly even of God.

All right, so Josephus prophesies that Vespasian will be emperor, or Caesar. Does Vespasian believe him? (Keep in mind that he was not in line to be emperor.)

When he had said these things Vespasian did not immediately seem to believe him, and supposed that Josephus was plotting these things for his own salvation. But after a little while he was led to believe, as God was raising him to leadership already and foreshowing the scepters through other signs. And he also caught wind that Josephus was genuine in other things, for the other of the friends who chanced to be at the forbidden meetings said that he wondered how he predicted neither for those of Jotapata about their capture, nor to himself his own capture, unless these things are nonsense to ward off the wraths upon him.

But Josephus replied that he did foretell to the Jotapatans both that after forty-seven days they would be captured and that he himself would be taken alive unto the Romans. Vespasian, having made inquiry from the captives in private, when he found that these things were true, thus began to believe concerning these things about him. He therefore did not send Josephus away from custody and bonds, but gifted him with clothing and the other valuables; treating him with friendship and concern he finished the many things, Titus working together in the honor.

Now, this all seems innocuous enough. Josephus predicted that Vespasian would be Caesar, and, since his other predictions had come to pass as well, Vespasian (eventually) believed him. But what Josephus does not relate about this prediction, which of course proved true, at exactly this point in the narrative he does reveal in another place. Wars 6.312-313:

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

Ah, this is interesting. Scholars are almost unanimous on which scriptural prophecy this ambiguous oracle was. It had to be the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.24-27. That is the only prophecy in the entire scriptural corpus that actually gives a timetable or calendar of events for which the words at that time would be appropriate. There are literally dozens of ways to calculate the timing of those seventy weeks, and I myself have worked through only a couple of them, but one of the calculations puts the seventieth week right in the range of AD 70.

But follow this: If the prophetic word that Josephus here applies to Vespasian is Daniel 9.24-27, then Vespasian must be the anointed one of 9.24, the one predicted to be prince. In other words, Josephus paints Vespasian in distinctly messianic colors.

And those colors did not soon fade. A couple of decades later Tacitus demonstrated his awareness of this Josephan identification of Vespasian with the Danielic messiah in Histories 5.13.2:

Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient books of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong and rulers of Judea would come into possession of the world. These ambiguous things had predicted Vespasian and Titus, but the common folk by their habit of human desire had interpreted such magnificence of fate of themselves, nor were converted to the truth even by disasters.

Josephus, then, declared that Vespasian was the predicted ruler, the christ, of the ancient Jewish prophecy, and at least Vespasian himself and the historian Tacitus believed him. But did Vespasian work wonders? Yes. At least two that we know of. Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 7.2-4:

Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases. About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, by the direction of some soothsayers, several vessels of ancient workmanship were dug out of a consecrated place, on which there was an effigy resembling Vespasian.

Exactly as Vespasian was at first skeptical about Josephus but then believed, so here he is at first skeptical about his ability to heal, but is persuaded to go through with it anyway. And both healings work! (It is perhaps worthwhile to note the manner of the cure in the case of the blind man, with spittle just like Jesus in Mark 7.33 and John 9.6.) Then, to top it all off, his likeness is prodigously dug up from an ancient shrine, further affirming the popular faith in him.

Vespasian was, then, a (reluctant) false christ who (reluctantly) worked wonders.

It is worthwhile to point out that, definitionally speaking, Josephus himself was a false prophet. Scholars have long discussed his prophetic gift, and, if he used it to point to a false christ, then he was a false prophet (even if his prophecies came true) by Jewish and Christian definition. And surely his fulfilled predictions at Jotapata would qualify as wonders capable of leading people astray. They led Vespasian astray, right? So in Josephus we actually have a third individual in this post.

Just the sort of thing Jesus was warning against in Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22.

In him.

Etcetera.

Etc thank you. As you know I am working on my commentary for Matthew 24, I hope you don't mind if I use some this information, which of course I will give you due credit for sourcework. That is what is beautiful about publishing an online commentary, it is so easy to add when new information is found.

Dee Dee:

No problem. Use whatever you wish of what I have posted. In turn, as I am in the process of assembling my own personal collection of materials on Olivet, I hope that you do not mind if I scour your Matthew 24 commentary (you refer to your work in the Tennis Court, which I have only barely skimmed, correct?) for tidbits, mainly the references to the ancient texts that I then look up in the Greek or Latin and translate for myself (usually in wooden, literalistic manner so as not to obscure the underlying connections).

In him.

Etcetera.

Post-script: I am going to PM you another idea.

Etc your PM was wonderful and I am totally open to all of that. And thanks for your permission and whatever of mine you wish to use you know you are always welcome to it.

TO: Etectera and All

I said I was going to go on vacation but that was before I read etcetera's post.

When I return I will address the first gentleman Etcetera cited since I thought that was the weaker one and can wait until my return. Here is some commentary regarding his second alledged "false christ" though.

Here is an excerpt of what I read at website regarding Etcetera's post:

The article about Vespasian makes some very bad mistakes. For example, whilst is is correct that some Jews may have considered Vespasian to be the fulfillment of Daniel 9, it is totally incorrect in assuming that they thought he was the Messiah of Daniel 9.

It says this:


QUOTE
But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.



But this says nothing of the Messiah, nor that the Jews were interpreting this 'ambiguous oracle' as referring to Messiah.

And when Vespasian came along, they did not identify him as Messisah. Far to the contrary - they seem to be more afraid that he was the destroyer who makes desolate, which is precisely why they were afraid:


QUOTE
Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient books of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong and rulers of Judea would come into possession of the world. These ambiguous things had predicted Vespasian and Titus, but the common folk by their habit of human desire had interpreted such magnificence of fate of themselves, nor were converted to the truth even by disasters.



No sign whatever that people thought Vespasian was going to be the Messiah.

The alleged wonders which Vespasian is supposed to have worked are equally weak:


QUOTE
Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel.

At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases. About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, by the direction of some soothsayers, several vessels of ancient workmanship were dug out of a consecrated place, on which there was an effigy resembling Vespasian.



Firstly we only have Suetonius' word for this (no other record of these events exists).

Secondly, the very fact that Vespasian 'could scarely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed' makes it very clear that he was not doing this out of a desire to prove himself the Messiah - or even that he had any supernatural power.

Thirdly, miracles and wonders had been ascribed to Roman emperors before, this was nothing new.

The argument ends rather pathetically with this:


QUOTE
Vespasian was, then, a (reluctant) false christ who (reluctantly) worked wonders.



Christ's words do not describe any reluctant false Christs, who reluctantly work wonders - quite the opposite. And as we have seen, Vespasian never presented himself, nor thought of himself, as Christ.

Josephus says:


QUOTE
'A few years afterwards, under the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea, impostors of this stamp were so frequent that some were taken and killed almost every day’.

Antiquities, 20.8.4-5




QUOTE
'There were many who, pretending to Divine inspiration, deceived the people, leading out numbers of them to the desert, pretending that God would there show them the signs of liberty and redeem them from the Roman power.'

Antiquities, 20:8.6

taken from: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/f...0&#entry125970

Question: How long after the alledged "signs and wonders"/miracles were the events recorded for Vespasian?

Ken:

You have got to be kidding me. I posted my comments just yesterday, Saturday night (late), and already there is a write-up on them on a Christadelphian board? How things do fly in cyberspace.



As for the specifics of the response to my presentation, let me begin by quoting Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, pages 267-268:

Thus, Vespasian could be regarded in the East as a ruler who usurped messianic expectations and legitimated himself through prophets and miracles. It made no difference that he himself was a modest man. As a usurper, he had to rely on loud and vigorous propaganda. The warning against pseudo-messiahs in Mk 13:21-22 could have been formulated against the background of such a "propaganda campaign" for the victorious new emperor, who created peace by subduing the Jews and whose legitimacy was supported by signs and wonders....

The future expectations expressed in Mk. 13.14ff. can thus be located with ease in the circumstances around 70 C.E.

Theissen, a liberal scholar, is arguing (as quite a few other liberal scholars do) that Mark 13.22 is a vaticinium ex eventu, a prophecy made after the fact, and then placed fictitiously on the lips of Jesus some 40 years earlier. This is a clue that perhaps the author of your snippet (to which I cannot at present gain direct access, as I am not a member of that board) has missed something crucial in the argument. When secular scholars begin positing vaticinia ex eventu, it is because they have difficulty imagining such a thing being predicted years in advance; it is not that the match is not tight enough, but rather that it is suspiciously too tight (for those who do not believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy).

Now on to the specific comments (all emphases mine):

The article about Vespasian makes some very bad mistakes. For example, whilst is is correct that some Jews may have considered Vespasian to be the fulfillment of Daniel 9, it is totally incorrect in assuming that they thought he was the Messiah of Daniel 9.

My post nowhere assumes that anybody thought of Vespasian as the messiah. Since my argument depends on the comparison of two different passages, it was actually virtually impossible to merely assume any connection. I had to at least present the passages in tandem. And I did more than that.

It says this:

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

But this says nothing of the Messiah, nor that the Jews were interpreting this 'ambiguous oracle' as referring to Messiah.

I am uncertain from what perspective the author is writing here, Ken. Does this person (A) dispute that Daniel 9.24-27 is messianic, or (B) dispute that the oracle mentioned in Wars 6.312-313 is Daniel 9.24-27? Or both?

Because if Daniel 9.24-27 is messianic, and if Josephus is referring to this particular scriptural oracle, then one would be hard pressed to deny that Josephus is calling Vespasian the messiah. He says that the very individual that the Jews expected to come out of their own house (that is, from the Jewish race) and rule the earth was actually a Roman crowned on Jewish soil. If he is not identifying Vespasian with the messiah, then who is he identifying him with?

And when Vespasian came along, they did not identify him as Messisah. Far to the contrary - they seem to be more afraid that he was the destroyer who makes desolate, which is precisely why they were afraid:

Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient books of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong and rulers of Judea would come into possession of the world. These ambiguous things had predicted Vespasian and Titus, but the common folk by their habit of human desire had interpreted such magnificence of fate of themselves, nor were converted to the truth even by disasters.

No sign whatever that people thought Vespasian was going to be the Messiah.

Look very carefully, Ken, at how this author has shifted the points of the argument.

First, who are the they in that first sentence? Jews at large? I am not arguing that all Jews everywhere, or even most Jews, or even more than a handful of Jews (or even more than one!) believed that Vespasian was the anointed one predicted in Daniel 9.24-27. Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22 nowhere insists that all Jews everywhere, or even most Jews, or even more than a handful of Jews must actually believe in the false christs. All that the text requires is that a messianic claim be made of somebody who works wonders. The last phrase of that verse, προς το αποπλαναν, ει δυνατον, τους εκλεκτους, does not imply that anybody (elect or otherwise) is actually deceived. It is just προς with the infinitive, an ordinary NT expression of purpose (not result!).

In this case, of course, we do happen to know of at least one Jew who was deceived: Josephus. But that is gravy.

Second, the author of this response says that Jews were afraid that Vespasian was the destroyer. That may well be. However, the text that he (or she?) cites does not exactly say that. In context, the fear is of the portents in Tacitus, Histories 5.13.1:

There came forth prodigies, which this race, addicted to superstition, though against religiosities, does not have a law to propitiate either by sacrifices or by vows. There were seen in heaven forces rushing together, a reddening of arms, and the temple lit up by a fire coming down from the clouds. The doors of the shrine were suddenly opened, and a voice, greater than that of a human, was heard to say that the gods were departing. Simultaneously there was the unnatural movement of a departure.

Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient letters of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong....

Our author from that other board has the generic they being afraid, and afraid (precisely) of Vespasian. The text itself, however, states explicitly that only a few (pauci) were afraid, and they were afraid of the portents (the doors of the temple opening of their own accord and so forth), and what they might mean for the fate of Jerusalem. But the many (pluribus) were not afraid.

That said, I do not doubt that many, or at least some, Jews were afraid of Vespasian. But such a point is indifferent to my argument. All that we need to fulfill Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22 is a messianic claim for a wonder-worker. This is the crucial point that the author has missed. He seems to assume that a fulfillment requires a majority of Jews to actually be deceived by this false wonder-working messiah, a supposition that he is reading into the text, not out of it.

The alleged wonders which Vespasian is supposed to have worked are equally weak:

Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel.

At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases. About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, by the direction of some soothsayers, several vessels of ancient workmanship were dug out of a consecrated place, on which there was an effigy resembling Vespasian.

Firstly we only have Suetonius' word for this (no other record of these events exists).

It is, of course, the case that we very often have no other record than Suetonius, or than Tacitus, or than Josephus, for events. If the author wishes to argue that Suetonius is mistaken here, let us hear it.

Secondly, the very fact that Vespasian 'could scarely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed' makes it very clear that he was not doing this out of a desire to prove himself the Messiah - or even that he had any supernatural power.

Again, our verse does not in any way require that the messianic idea originate with the false messiah himself. Our author is simply assuming such to be the case. (Besides, the reaction that Vespasian has toward Josephus indicates plainly enough that he has bought into the prediction.)

Josephus has painted Vespasian in messianic colors. That is all that the Olivet prediction requires.

Thirdly, miracles and wonders had been ascribed to Roman emperors before, this was nothing new.

This is quite true. Irrelevant to the argument on either side, but true indeed.

The argument ends rather pathetically with this...:

Pathetically? Must we resort to put-downs? I wrote what I wrote in the spirit of pursuit and common study. If I am mistaken, I certainly hope that the one who points out my mistake would do so in the same spirit.

Originally posted by Etcetera

Vespasian was, then, a (reluctant) false christ who (reluctantly) worked wonders.

Christ's words do not describe any reluctant false Christs, who reluctantly work wonders - quite the opposite.

The main point of contention, I think. Our author thinks that the words of Christ on Olivet insist on a gung-ho attitude for our false christ. Here is the verse again, Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22:

For there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Is there anything in this verse that gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the deceivers?

And as we have seen, Vespasian never presented himself, nor thought of himself, as Christ.

Josephus presented him, and thought of him, as the christ from Daniel 9.24-27. Josephus applied a false messianic claim to Vespasian, and Vespasian bought it. And so did Tacitus (later on). They were convinced that the messianic prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 applied to Vespasian.

Josephus says:

A few years afterwards, under the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea, impostors of this stamp were so frequent that some were taken and killed almost every day.

Antiquities, 20.8.4-5

Yes, it certainly sounds as if there was quite a lot of false prophets or false christs in that time period. See Matthew 24.5 = Mark 13.6 = Luke 21.8.

Is it possible, by the way, that our author has simply confused these last verses with the verses that I was actually addressing? Matthew 24.5 and its parallels do speak of self-conscious messianic claimants, the kind that proclaim openly: I am the one, the kind that our modest emperor Vespasian does not seem to have been. But these verses, which belong to the beginnings of the birth pangs (Matthew 24.8 = Mark 13.8b), when the end is not yet immediate (Luke 21.9), do not say that these particular christs will perform miracles. It is only during the great tribulation (Matthew 24.21-22 = Mark 13.19-20) that our texts mention false christs who work wonders... but they do not state that these false christs will necessarily be self-conscious christs.

If the author that you cited did in fact confuse these verses, that would go a long way toward explaining the tack that he took in his argument.

Originally posted by Ken

Question:How long after the alledged "signs and wonders"/miracles were the events recorded for Vespasian?

The healings date to about 69 or 70. Suetonius wrote the Life of Vespasian before 130.

I must confess that I still agree with Theissen that Vespasian is an elegant match with Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22, though I naturally disagree with him that it had to be written back onto the lips of Jesus some 40 years earlier.

In him.

Etcetera.

Post-script: Ken, I do not know if I addressed all of your misgivings. I do not know if you snipped that quote from the other board because you agreed with all of it, or only with some of it, or just wanted to see what I would make of it. What are your thoughts on the issue?

Etc it is obvious that Ken posted there for assistance. Here is Ken's post:

TO: ALL

I have been debating at another board. My initial research indicated that Matthew 24:24 did not occur between the time of Christ and 70 A.D.

Here is Mathew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Here is my initial reasearch which indicated there were no false christs who did great signs and wonders and who were almost able to deceive the very elect )so to speak):

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39486

Recently, someone created another thread saying there were two false Christ who fit the bill: Simon Magus and Vespasian.
Here is that thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40049

I think that Simon Magus is easy to refute. I would like assistance in commenting on Vespasian. Of hand, I would ask how soon the miracles were recorded after the actual events. I also have questions regarding the relation or non-relation of Daniel verse cited and Vespasian.

Any help would be appreciated.

While on "vacation" - he joined just to do that apparently. Very odd.

It is strange that he would run to those who deny the deity of Christ. Etc I am a member there at that forum (I don't participate - made a few posts for a specific reason) - I will email you the file of the thread if you like. We should require membership to view threads eh (we only do for the Locker Room as that is in-house disputes)? Boost our counts. But just so that you know - the post that Ken cited above is the last post on thethread which is very short - it is the only substantive response. Funny how though Ken said he thought Simon Magus was weak and was immediately told that Simon was strong.

Dee Dee:

Etc it is obvious that Ken posted there for assistance....

In retrospect, I guess it is rather obvious. I tell you, I can be so naive about these things.

I will email you the file of the thread if you like....

Yes, I should like that very much. Thanks for offering.

I am always wary about joining boards whose posts I cannot see until after I join. Afraid of spam and other even less wanted attention.

Thanks a bunch, Dee Dee.

Etcetera.

Originally posted by Etcetera

Dee Dee:



In retrospect, I guess it is rather obvious. I tell you, I can be so naive about these things.

Oh I did't mean for it to sound chiding like saying you were clueless or anything - sorry if it sounded that way

Yes, I should like that very much. Thanks for offering.

I am always wary about joining boards whose posts I cannot see until after I join. Afraid of spam and other even less wanted attention.

Thanks a bunch, Dee Dee.

No problem I will take a look. I think since the main guys on that board, being historicists, affirm that there were false Christs during this time frame that Ken will not be looking there much further on that particular issue.

Dee Dee:

Oh I did't mean for it to sound chiding like saying you were clueless or anything....

No, no, it didn't. But I'm allowed to speak for myself, and I, Etcetera, do declare that at times I am....



Oh, and I think you mentioned emailing the exchange to me. Is there any way to make it a PM instead?

Thanks.

Etcetera.

Sure I will do that later tonight and maybe there will be more responses on the thread then. Right now you have the whole thing. What Ken posted and what I posted are pretty much the contents of that thread. the one thing you are missing is the same author saying that Simon Magus is a strong candidate and that the author does beleive there were false christs during that time

TO: Etcetera

I am about to leave on business matters but I found some time to quickly scan over your post. I would need to know more about how close the time before the allegded miracles and their recording and I clarify why later in this post.



Here is why the time before the allegded events and the recording of the events is important according to some website inforation based on a eminent anicent historian:

With the first writting of the Gospel story in AD 50 (see above) it is clear that the Jesus' story was already set in stone by mid century, just 20 years after the events. This would not be enough time for myth to develop.

William Lane Craig quotes prof. Sherwin-Whtite ("Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Rsurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth 1 (1985): 89-95) "For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses."

taken from: http://www.retirementwithapurpose.com/mhestory2.html


The historian Michael Grant writes, "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." [Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner's, 1977), p. 199.]

Here is an exerpt from a website that elaborates on Jewish culture in terms of religious traditions at the time of the 1st century:

"...the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'.... In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions."Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal..."

taken from: http://www.retirementwithapurpose.com/mhestory2.html

I think my vacation will work to both are benefit. I cannot post for a while and this will give you more time to investigate if further investigation is needed.

TO: ALL

I revised my last post quite a bit. I am sorry I did not have more time to respond to the post subsequent to my last post.

Sincerely,

Ken

Ken:

Well, now I am a bit confused. You stated that you wished to know how long it was between the Vespasianic healings and their report in Suetonius, and I told you. Then you wrote again and said that you need more information about how much time intervened.

And then you added a long quotation about the dating of the gospels. While that question is a good one, and one that interests me a great deal, I am wondering what it has to do with the healings in question. What matters is the span of time between Vespasian and the writing up of his life in Suetonius, correct?

To recap the timing: The healings took place in 69 or 70, and Suetonius wrote before 130. That is a span of about 60 years. Furthermore, Suetonius was born in about 69, if that helps put it all into perspective.

Oh, and it turns out that Tacitus records the healing too. I had completely forgotten, even though it is actually the Tacitean version that I remember having read many moons ago, now that I see it again. Histories 4.81 (translation from Church and Brodribb):

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

Tacitus wrote in about 110. He says that he has eyewitnesses to the fact. Hard to ask for more than that.

So, when the author from that other board wrote...:

Firstly we only have Suetonius' word for this (no other record of these events exists).

...and I answered...:

It is, of course, the case that we very often have no other record than Suetonius, or than Tacitus, or than Josephus, for events. If the author wishes to argue that Suetonius is mistaken here, let us hear it.

...we can forthwith correct this exchange. My answer is quite correct, but equally incomplete. Your respondent on the other board, however, simply made an (incorrect) assertion without checking his facts. It took me about two minutes to locate this Tacitean passage, once I remembered that it might be there.

Cheers. And enjoy your vacation.

Etcetera.

What I find ironic here is Ken's differing standards of proof. I have read some of his exchanges with atheists on alleged Biblical difficulties and he is satisfied that the difficulties are resolved with much less proof IMHO then what you have presented above.

Dee Dee:

That is often a problem with Christian readers. Separate canons of inquiry.

What is interesting about all of this is that, with the exception of Matthew 24.29-31 and parallels (the cosmic signs and coming of the son of man), we are debating what I would regard as the weakest link in the chain of Olivet. All of the other events-- the earthquakes, famines, wars, betrayals, generic false prophets and false christs, and overall lawlessness-- are attested in spades in our sources. It is only the specific combination of false christs who work miracles that is not quite so commonly attested. Yet it is attested. Demonstrate this point, and most of the battle over Olivet is won already.

In him.

Etcetera.