Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-05-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

... It is already known that Eusebius merely used and copied [sometimes word for word] earlier sources for his Chronicle.
... Eusebius had a very simple task. He just copied earlier sources.

It is not as simple as all that. Sources vary in details and dates, and due to use of local calendars, eras and epochs [all they really had available in remote antiquity) they often dated the same events differently.

The "168th year" in one chronicle may be the "169th year" in another, and it is entirely possible for BOTH to be correct. Say, one used a fall epoch and the other spring, or one used an era that included an accession year and the other did not, etc.

This is also a problem for scholars occupied with study of Josephus, who also seemed to have used a large variety of sources. He attempted to reconcile them, such as equating a Macedonian (lunar) month name with a Julian (fixed) month name, but not explaining (or perhaps not knowing for sure) whether he is approximating or actually stating that the particular calendar he cited actually uses Julian months but gives them Macedonian names, or vice versa.

Then he had to attempt to synchronize the different major eras (Year of the city of Rome, Year of the Greeks, Anno Mundi, Olympiads, etc). Since much of the earliest "dates" held by tradition were mythical , he had to try to find events that allowed him to synchronize them as best as he could. Once he made such synchronisms, he can make some tables. That is how he can construct a synthesized system that goes all the way back to creation.

His chronicle doesn't go back to creation; only to the 15th year of Abraham. Later chroniclers felt they could date the creation; Eusebius didn't believe it. He was pretty sceptical about a lot of early Greek dates as well.

Some of his sources only dated by the olympiad, a set of 4 years. Some used regnal years; but of course a king might ascend the throne at any time of the year. The "year" might begin at different points of the year. Each Greek city had its own calendar, used different months. Often they calculated dates, as the Romans did, by annual magistrates -- "in the consulate of Gaius and Sextus" -- which meant that you would have to know when, in the year, the annual magistrate took office, in order to synchronise an event. And what if a king ruled less than one year? Do you call that "the first year of King Zog"? You pretty much have to; which means all subsequent kings are out by some portion of a year.

The invention of the big parchment codex made it possible for Eusebius to make a technological innovation and draw up book 2 of his chronicle in tabular format, rather than the verbose form used in book 1, which probably is how earlier chronographers had worked. You learn quite a lot about the work, if you try and lay out a few pages, say in HTML or Excel, as I did.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 09-05-2013, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

His chronicle doesn't go back to creation; only to the 15th year of Abraham. Later chroniclers felt they could date the creation; Eusebius didn't believe it. He was pretty sceptical about a lot of early Greek dates as well....

Eusebius' Chronicle did go back to Adam.

Quote:

There is a 586 year discrepancy between this version and the Septuagint. The difference [g123] is in the number of years each man from Adam to Noah lived before fathering children. [The versions agree] only for the times of Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech.

This circumstance suggests to us that the text which we use [i.e. the Septuagint] is the best.

From the longer period assigned to Jared and his descendants [in the Hebrew version] it is clear that the periods of their predecessors, similarly, should be the same as in the Septuagint version. By adding one hundred years the discrepancy observed between the later and more recent generations in the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions is eliminated. [We might suggest] the possibility that the descendants [g124] lived longer than their ancestors. Yet for each man's life, the number of years before his son was born, and the number of year that he lived afterwards, added together, produces the same total in the Hebrew version and the Septuagint. It is only the number of years before their sons were born which is shorter in the Jewish copies. Therefore we suspect that this was something which the Jews did. They made bold to shorten the time before the fathering of children to encourage early marriages. For if these ancestors lived such long lives, marrying early and fathering children early [g125] as their version clearly states, who would not want to emulate them by marrying early?

Theophilus of Antioch c 185 CE

Quote:

1. Adam lived till he begat a son, 230 years.

2. And his son Seth, 205.

3. And his son Enos, 190.

4. And his son Cainan, 170.

5. And his son Mahaleel, 165.

6. And his son Jared, 162.

7. And his son Enoch, 165.

8. And his son Methuselah, 167.

9. And his son Lamech, 188.

10. And Lamech's son was Noah, of whom we have spoken above, who begat Shem when 500 years old.

During Noah's life, in his 600th year, the flood came.

B]The total number of years, therefore, till the flood, was 2242.[/B]

Theophilus had ALREADY claimed since c 185 CE that there were 2242 years from ADAM to the Flood which is IDENTICAL to Eusebius

In Eusebius wrote about the time of Creation in the' Chronicle' and used the very same time as Theophilus of Antioch

Eusebius' Chronicle

Quote:

1. Adam, the first man, was 230 years of age when he fathered Seth. He lived an additional 700 years, until the 135th year of Mahalalel.
2. Seth fathered Enosh when he was 205 years of age. He lived an additional 707 years, until the 20th year of Enoch [g116].

3. Enosh fathered Kenan when he was 190 years of age. He lived an additional 715 years, until the 53rd year of Methuselah.

4. Kenan fathered Mahalalel when he was 170 years of age. He lived an additional 740 years, until the 81st year of Lamech.

5. Mahalalel fathered Jared when he was 165 years of age. He lived an additional 730 years, until the 48th year of Noah.

6. Jared fathered Enoch when he was 162 years of age. He lived an additional 800 years, until the 280th years of Noah.

7. Enoch fathered Methusaleh when he was 165 years of age. He lived an additional 200 years, until he was translated in the 33rd year of Lamech.

8. Methusaleh fathered Lamech [g117] when he was 167 years of age. He lived an additional 802 years. Thus he would have survived the flood by 22 years. However, [g118] in other versions he died before the flood having lived an additional 782 years [after Lamech's birth] [g119].

9. Lamech fathered Noah when he was 188 years of age. He lived an additional 535 years. Lamech predeceased his father Methusaleh in the 535th year of Noah [g120].

10. Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth when he was 500 years of age. This was 100 years before the flood, which occurred in the 600th year of Noah. He lived an additional 350 years after the flood, until the 83rd year of Eber.

[Thus] according to the Septuagint, the full total is 2,242 years [for the period from Adam to the death of Noah].

Eusebius merely copied existing sources that were ALREADY known and circulated in the Roman Empire.

Kapyong · 09-06-2013, 05:21 PM

Gday all,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It sounds like you are trying to reproduce
Remsberg's list of writers who could have mentioned Jesus but didn't.

This list has been the subject of lengthy commentary in this forum, which you can find by checking the archives. There is extensive discussion of whether any of these authors could have been expected to mention Jesus or the events in the gospels.

Some others have seen this, but Tommy might be interested in my version of Remsberg's list, annotated with dates and some details (his original is just a bare list) :

http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au...ould-have.html

K.

maryhelena · 09-07-2013, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It sounds like you are trying to reproduce
Remsberg's list of writers who could have mentioned Jesus but didn't.

This list has been the subject of lengthy commentary in this forum, which you can find by checking the archives. There is extensive discussion of whether any of these authors could have been expected to mention Jesus or the events in the gospels.

Some others have seen this, but Tommy might be interested in my version of Remsberg's list, annotated with dates and some details (his original is just a bare list) :

http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au...ould-have.html

K.

Thanks for the link to your interesting list. Much appreciated.

Tommy · 09-07-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It sounds like you are trying to reproduce
Remsberg's list of writers who could have mentioned Jesus but didn't.

This list has been the subject of lengthy commentary in this forum, which you can find by checking the archives. There is extensive discussion of whether any of these authors could have been expected to mention Jesus or the events in the gospels.

Some others have seen this, but Tommy might be interested in my version of Remsberg's list, annotated with dates and some details (his original is just a bare list) :

http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au...ould-have.html

K.

I am certainly interested, thank you very much.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.