And you didn't even mention the possibility (and likelihood) that John, the enigmatic author of the gospel, was a member of that high-priestly family as well.
Great conversation again. Seems very much to be original Josephus in this Slavonic version. It's very plausible he increased his misled and opportunistic suspicion and contempt against ΙΕΣΟΥΣ in the account about the Jewish War, the catastrophy of his nation. As much as one must esteem his - apart from and yet in connection with the Scriptures - singular historical works, he remains in all his brilliance a somewhat shady and shrewd character. What could be brought forth in his defence is the already (and early) onset of all kinds of apostasies and legend-building and gnostic deviations among those who were named (or named themselves) ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΙ.
When we consider Paul's and John's letters and remarks, we must assume that not so many were and remained faitful witnesses of what had been taught by Him and by those that He had appointed and sent.
And you didn't even mention the possibility (and likelihood) that John, the enigmatic author of the gospel, was a member of that high-priestly family as well.
Great conversation again. Seems very much to be original Josephus in this Slavonic version. It's very plausible he increased his misled and opportunistic suspicion and contempt against ΙΕΣΟΥΣ in the account about the Jewish War, the catastrophy of his nation. As much as one must esteem his - apart from and yet in connection with the Scriptures - singular historical works, he remains in all his brilliance a somewhat shady and shrewd character. What could be brought forth in his defence is the already (and early) onset of all kinds of apostasies and legend-building and gnostic deviations among those who were named (or named themselves) ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΙ.
When we consider Paul's and John's letters and remarks, we must assume that not so many were and remained faitful witnesses of what had been taught by Him and by those that He had appointed and sent.