Here are some, and in the reading of them you will find old records which tell us of the 2 Passovers.
The original Passover instructions clearly stipulate that Passover is a single day—Abib 14—followed by the seven-day Feast of Unleavened …
www.bibletools.org
The Christian Passover by Fred R. Coulter
www.cbcg.org
None of these are peer-reviewed journals or historical scholars. What they are attempting is literally just fix the discrepency in the Gospels?
Maybe maybe not. He might not agree but that does not mean he is right.
Uh, it's his field, he isn't a Pastor writing an article to harmonize Gospel accounts, he studies the period.
Is there another historian arguing for 2 Passovers?
The Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a is supposed to be about the death of Jesus and tells us it was on the Eve of Passover. That is history that the gospel story is true and that the version of John is true.
Are you serious with this Talmud stuff?
| Professor Louis Ginzberg, "Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue Towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings", Journal of Biblical Literature (1922), p. 121 n. 18 One may therefore state with absolute certainty that the entire Talmudic-Midrashic literature does not know of any nicknames for Jesus or his disciples. |
No scholars in Judaism say that mention is Jesus?
24. “Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”
As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts
against historicity. Not for it (
OHJ, ch. 8.1).
Dr Carrier
What are your historical sources that John was wrong?
Carrier:
4. “The Gospels”
“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (
OHJ, ch. 10.7).
John redacts stories, Journal paper
"
John is the only gospel to claim an eyewitness source, and yet the author does not even name this mysterious figure, but simply refers to him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This is hardly eyewitness testimony, and it is probably the case that the author(s) of
John invented this figure. One possibility is that the anonymous beloved disciple is a character already identified within the text. Verbal parallels suggest that the anonymous disciple may be Lazarus from
John 11 (verses 1; 3; 5; 11; 36), whom Jesus raises from the dead in the passage.
[30] This Lazarus is likely based on the retelling of a story about an allegorical Lazarus in
Luke 16:20-31. In the parable, Lazarus is a beggar who was fed by a wealthy man who dies and goes to Heaven, but the rich man dies and goes to Hell. The rich man begs Abraham in Heaven to send Lazarus to warn his family, since, if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. In
Luke, Abraham refuses to send Lazarus from the dead, arguing that people should study the Torah and the Prophets to believe and will not be convinced even if someone from the dead visits them. In the
Gospel of John, however, in which Jesus is more prone to demonstrate his powers through signs and miracles, rather than by appeals to Old Testament verses like in the Synoptic Gospels, the author instead has Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, so that people might believe in him. The author of
John thus very likely is redacting a previous story based on an allegorical character.
Regardless, even if the anonymous beloved disciple is not based on Lazarus
[31], the
Gospel of John is still extremely ambiguous about this character’s identity. The text even refuses to name him at key moments, such as the discovery of the empty tomb (
20:1-9), where other characters such as Mary Magdalene and Peter are named, and yet this character is deliberately kept anonymous. The traditional identification of the disciple with John the son of Zebedee is undermined, among many other reasons, by the internal evidence of this beloved disciple’s connection with the high priest of Jerusalem (
18:15-16), which could hardly be expected of an illiterate fisherman from backwater Galilee. The
Gospel of John likewise shows signs of originally ending at
John 20:30-31, and chapter 21, which claims the anonymous disciple as a witness, is very likely an addition from a later author. The chapter (
21:24) distinguishes between the disciple who is testifying and the authors (plural) who know that it is true, suggesting that (even in this secondary material) the anonymous disciple is not to be understood as the author of the final version of the text.
[32] Furthermore, the final composition of
John is dated to approximately 90-120 CE, which is largely beyond the lifetimes of an adult eyewitnesses of Jesus.
[33] In order to compensate for this problematic chronology, the author even had to invent the detail that this supposed eyewitness would live an abnormally long life (
21:23) to account for the time gap. This detail is further explained if the anonymous disciple is based on Lazarus, who was already raised from the dead and has conquered death. Ultimately, all of these factors suggest that the unidentified “witness” is most likely an authorial invention (probably of a second author) used to gain proximal credibility for the otherwise latest of the four canonical Gospels.
[34]
Given all of the problems with the traditional authorship of
John, even Christian scholar Raymond Brown (
An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 368-369) explains: “As with the other Gospels it is doubted by most scholars that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus.”"
No, in the capital 2 Passover times were allowed according to history.
which history?
They are written in the style of the gospels. I remember Jesus telling some (Peter, John, etc ) to drop their nets on the other side of the boat and giving them a big fish catch that way. (Good reason)
I remember Jesus telling one (Nathaniel) that He knew of his prayer (Good reason)
What the heck does a main character doing something that favors his followers have to do with showing it's true?
Word gets around that miracles are being done by Jesus. In a time when the Messiah was being looked for, that might be all that is needed.
If you assume they are fictional then that is what they are for you.
I don't. I assume they are historical fiction because they are all redactions of Mark, which uses parables, improbable events, an impossible chiasmus of events, triadic ring structure (literary devices only found in myth), definite use of Elijah and Moses narratives, Psalms, Paul, Homer, Romulus, Jesus Ben Ananias.....The Greek school was teaching this stye, it was a trending Hellenistic theology which fits exactly.....
Summary
The Hellenistic mystery cults play a decisive role in the argumentation of the representatives of the school of the history of religions (see the Introduction, above), in two ways. First, they postulate a genetic derivation of the Christian sacraments from the quasi-sacramental rites of the mystery cults (initiation, washings, anointings, sacred meals); they see the Chrisrian sacraments as having no basis in the message of Jesus and in Palestinian biblical Judaism, but rather as the outcome of a process of Hellenisation which is evaluated as a lapse from the original purity of the gospel, whether this is dated (with Heitmuller) already before Paul, or (with Harnack: see p. 148, n. 49) only outside the New Testament itself in the second century. Secondly, it is further argued (see Bruckner) that the myth of the dying and rising again of a divinity, which lies at the centre of each cult, was a significant influence on earliest Christianity's image of Christ, which drifted off into myth.
The Religious Context of Early Christianity
A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions
HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Munich, Germany
rovocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation, Forum N.S. 6.2 (fall 2003), pp 137-341; Graig Evans, "Jesus in Non-Christian Sources" in Studying the Historical Jesus )ed Chilton and Evans) pp 443-78, 475-77
