The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His ExistenceRemsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Religion
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence
Remsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Jesus Christ -- Historicity; Jesus Christ -- Rationalistic interpretations; Rationalism
Concerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: "There is no
conjunction 'now,' and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If
a hiatus is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk; but to
insert words and alter the force of a tense in order to get over
a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty" (Life of Jesus,
p. 289, note).
295
Matthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who
does the author of Acts state was high priest?
"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander,
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered
together at Jerusalem" (iv, 6).
Luke (iii, 2), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that
Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.
Criticizing John's account of the examination before Annas, the
author of "Supernatural Religion" says: "The Synoptics know nothing
of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by
the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to
Annas: 'for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest
that year,' is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it
probably originated in a stranger writing of facts and institutions
with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error
equally committed by the author of the third Gospel, and of the Acts
of the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not
understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the
confusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest,
as we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact
that the title was not continued after the office was resigned;
and Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated
his term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear
the title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not
have been committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an
acquaintance of the high priest" (p. 660).
296
What is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas' office?
John: He was "high priest that year" (xi, 49).
John's language implies that the high priest was appointed annually,
whereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had
been high priest for many years.
297
What had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?
John: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not
for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one
the children of God that were scattered abroad" (xi, 51, 52).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account