Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 06:44 PM

Yes this is consistently represented in Eusebius - whom I believe, was channeling an older Alexandrian tradition which agrees with the statement in Stromata 7 cited above. We read in Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel Chapter 2:

Quote:

But when Darius gave his order afierwards, and the building of the Temple was also completed in his reign, from that date began to be fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel, which said, "From the going forth of the word of answering and from the building (396) of Jerusalem," and that which said, "I Daniel understood in the books the number of the years, which was the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, for the fulfilment of the desolation of Jerusalem seventy years." The completion of the period of seventy years is therefore shewn to have been reached in the second year of Darius, so that we must anyway reckon the seventy weeks from the sixty-sixth Olympiad, and from the second year of Darius, in which the building was completed. And if you reckon the succeeding (b) period from that date up to King Herod and the Roman Emperor Augustus, in whose times our Saviour was born on earth, you will find it amounts to 483 years, which are the seven and sixty-two weeks of the prophecy of Daniel. |131 From the sixty-sixth Olympiad to the 186th Olympiad there are 121 Olympiads, or 484 years, an Olympiad consisting of four years, during which time Augustus the Roman Emperor, in the fifteenth year of his reign, gained the (c) kingdom of Egypt and of the whole world, under whom Herod was the first foreigner to ascend the Jewish throne, and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born, the time of His birth synchronizing with the fulfilment of the seven and sixty-two weeks of Daniel's prophecy.

This corresponds almost perfectly to the idea in Clement that the teachings of the Lord were "in the middle of the times of Augustus completed." This number keeps coming up and it is strange because the sixty ninth week is in which the “anointed one” shall be “cut off" or "be no more." How do the two get reconciled? Eusebius and Africanus seem to be aware of this original interpretation and work to solve the difficulty.

I clearly have the exact opposite sense about Eusebius that Pete has. I think he knew the truth but did his best to work around the constraints of the age. In other words, the original understanding may have been "fifteenth of Augustus" rather than "fifteenth of Tiberius."

Why the fifteenth of Tiberius? There are two dates to calculate the beginning of Augustus' rule - 31 BCE and 27 BCE. It can't be coincidence that if we take the STARTING dates of the Emperors EVEN IF THE WERE JOINT RULERS with the previous Emperor we get about 31 BCE for Augustus and then 15 years from that starting point is 16 BCE. If this is the year Eusebius knows as the end of the 69th week and Clement the end of Jesus's ministry - let's assume that in the earliest Alexandrian (and Marcionite) tradition, they were one and the same.

If we assume that this was transformed into date of the birth of Jesus by the later Roman orthodox (= Irenaeus, Julius Africanus), it is curious that exactly 30 years later is the beginning of Tiberius's rule. If we remember Irenaeus's statement about Jesus being 'almost fifty' when he was crucified we fall almost exactly that many years when we go to the traditional dates of 15th year of Tiberius + 3 years = 48/49 year old crucified Jesus. The statement in the Apostolic Preaching about the crucifixion happening under Claudius is a further adaptation of that original formula.

I am amazed to see that there really is an argument that Jesus came down to earth in the fifteenth of Augustus - there are two witnesses Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius (at least partially).

mountainman · 02-26-2013, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What about the other evidence? I think there is a coin somewhere or perhaps more than one.

British Museum - Bronze coin of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judaea

Quote:

Roman, AD 30/1
From Judaea (modern Israel)

The Herodian dynasty lost its sole control over Judaea in AD 6, thanks to the irreparable breakdown of relations between Herod Archelaus and his people. The Roman solution was to turn Judaea into a directly governed province. At the head of the of provincial administration was the Praefectus (later Procurator). The most infamous of these, thanks to his role in the development of the Christian religion, was Pontius Pilate, who governed the province form AD 26. Pilate's governorship ended when he was recalled to Rome in AD 36 to give an account to the imperial authorities of his harsh administration.

The coin designs of the procurators were in general anodyne: the three first incumbents chose neutral symbols such as ears of barley, palm-trees and cornucopias; none placed their own names on the coins, merely the name of the ruling Roman emperor and the year of his reign. The designs of Pilate's issues strayed from the norm. On the front of his coins appear items of Roman cultic paraphernalia: the simpulum (a form of ladle) and, as on this issue, the lituus (an augural staff). The reverse of the coin carries the regnal year 17 of emperor Tiberius (this is the year AD 30/1).

Duvduv · 02-26-2013, 07:01 PM

The original Creed identified as in 325 had no mention of either Pilate or Mary.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:09 PM

What's more we can further look at Julius Africanus's attempt to square the 'seventy weeks' with this exact understanding:

Quote:

From this point, the 'weeks' of 70 years prophesied in Daniel took their beginning and are completed in the 22nd year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar, that is the fourth year of the 201st Olympiad. For the 69 weeks are completed in the 14th year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar and the first year of the 202nd Olympiad, at the time of the parousia at his baptism, and the beginning of the proclamation of salvation of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. And the remaining one week, which 'will strengthen a covenant for many,' is completed, as has been said, in the 22nd year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. And the half of the week, in which the prophet says, 'My offering will be taken away,' is is completed in the 19th year of the reign of Tiberius, that is the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad at which time Christ, our true God. underwent of his own will the life-giving Crucifixion. http://books.google.com/books?id=qDk...%2C%22&f=false

What I am saying then - miraculously I might add - I can actually account for how Julius Africanus (= Irenaeus?) managed to transform the original understanding that Jesus the heavenly god came down in the fifteenth year of Augustus into the fifteenth year of Tiberius. The underlying 'trick' is that Jesus lived to forty nine. Yes, this was developed 'ad hoc.' There was a lot of squirming on the part of the orthodox and uncertainty about how this could be made to work. But I have figured out how it was done.

Just think of it this way. The fifteenth year of Augustus to the fourteenth year of Tiberius = 30 years. The nineteenth year of Tiberius (qv) added to this (and transformed by Julius Africanus into Jesus's crucifixion) assumes a forty nine year old Jesus because - and this is critical - it was already established that he came down from heaven in the fifteenth year of Augustus (probably by the Marcionites but at the very least by some pre-existent tradition that later became heretical). Pretty fucking cool, if I may say so myself.

The 'almost fifty date' for Jesus then ultimately justified by the 'memory' of the idea that the year of favor was a forty ninth year (= the year before a Jubilee).

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:23 PM

And then - OMFG - the amazing thing that follows from this is that the Samaritan calculation of Sabbatical years (established in the other thread of mine) provides us with the ultimate confirmation of this understanding. For - as I note there - five years before I developed this understanding today, my friend Professor Rory Boid calculated that 37 CE was a forty ninth year based on the chronicle of the great Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath. Well guess what was the forty-ninth year before that? 12 BCE. 12 + 37 = 49th year. The Jubilee was 11 BCE.

OMFG. OMFG. This is too good to be true. The gospel was developed around a Samaritan understanding of the cycle of sabbatical years. This accounts for why 'the 15th of Tybi' (= 15th of the 11th month) is the start of the gospel for the Basilideans. This is why Jesus visits the Samaritan woman etc. etc. etc.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:27 PM

Of course I have now finally disposed of my entire premise for my previous book which identified Marcus Agrippa as the messiah based on the next forty ninth year (= 37 CE). Or have I?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:33 PM

One more thing. The 'fifteenth year of Augustus' does appear in Clement's writings (now corrupted):

Quote:

And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. [Strom 1.21]

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:39 PM

Problem with reconciling the year of Augustus that way. It seems that the official calendar counted the years from 31 BCE not the actual date that the title of Augustus was placed on him (= 27 BCE). Is that insurmountable? Does it make it impossible to identify 12 BCE as the 'fifteenth year of Augustus'?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:51 PM

Apparently there was a method of dating from 27 BCE (= the Augustan Era) as opposed to the Actian Era = 31 BCE:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YTE...0BC%22&f=false

This would I think finally allow us to nail where the gospel was written. It seems not to be Egypt though which did not use the Augustan Era.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 07:55 PM

The 27 BCE Augustan Era was apparently used in Macedonia (= counting from his receiving the title Sebastos):

http://books.google.com/books?id=x2A...0BC%22&f=false

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

02-26-2013, 07:01 PM	#23
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The original Creed identified as in 325 had no mention of either Pilate or Mary.

02-26-2013, 07:23 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And then - OMFG - the amazing thing that follows from this is that the Samaritan calculation of Sabbatical years (established in the other thread of mine) provides us with the ultimate confirmation of this understanding. For - as I note there - five years before I developed this understanding today, my friend Professor Rory Boid calculated that 37 CE was a forty ninth year based on the chronicle of the great Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath. Well guess what was the forty-ninth year before that? 12 BCE. 12 + 37 = 49th year. The Jubilee was 11 BCE. OMFG. OMFG. This is too good to be true. The gospel was developed around a Samaritan understanding of the cycle of sabbatical years. This accounts for why 'the 15th of Tybi' (= 15th of the 11th month) is the start of the gospel for the Basilideans. This is why Jesus visits the Samaritan woman etc. etc. etc.

02-26-2013, 07:27 PM	#26
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Of course I have now finally disposed of my entire premise for my previous book which identified Marcus Agrippa as the messiah based on the next forty ninth year (= 37 CE). Or have I?

02-26-2013, 07:39 PM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Problem with reconciling the year of Augustus that way. It seems that the official calendar counted the years from 31 BCE not the actual date that the title of Augustus was placed on him (= 27 BCE). Is that insurmountable? Does it make it impossible to identify 12 BCE as the 'fifteenth year of Augustus'?

02-26-2013, 07:51 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Apparently there was a method of dating from 27 BCE (= the Augustan Era) as opposed to the Actian Era = 31 BCE: http://books.google.com/books?id=YTE...0BC%22&f=false This would I think finally allow us to nail where the gospel was written. It seems not to be Egypt though which did not use the Augustan Era.

02-26-2013, 07:55 PM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The 27 BCE Augustan Era was apparently used in Macedonia (= counting from his receiving the title Sebastos): http://books.google.com/books?id=x2A...0BC%22&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.