Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 09:19 PM

Quote:

If we count by the years called Augustan, it is the year 265, also dating from the calends of January, although it was on the 16th of the calends of February, that on the proposition of L. Munacius Plancus, the senators, and other citizens gave to the imperator Cæsar the title of Augustus, Son of God, then consul for the seventh time with M. Vipsanius Agrippa, who was consul for the third time. As to the Egyptians, who at this date had been for two years under the power and authority of the Roman people, the present year is for them the 267th of Augustus. The Egyptian history, as well as our own, contains different æras. We distinguish the æra of Nabo-Nazaru which to-day has attained the number of 986 years, dating from that first year of the reign of that prince. The æra of Philip, which commenced at the 33 death of Alexander the Great and continues to our day, embraces 562 years. The æras of the Egyptians always commence on the first day of the month, Thoth, a day which, this present year, corresponds to the 7th calends of July, whilst a hundred years ago, under the second consulate of the Emperor Antoninus Pius and of Bruttius Præsena, this same day corresponded to the 12th of the calends of August, the ordinary epoch of the rising of the Canicular star in Egypt. Thus we see that we are to-day really in the hundredth year of this Annus Magnus, which, as I have stated above, is called the solar and canicular year and Year of God. [Censorius De Dei Natale 2.10]

The reference to the 'dog star' undoubtedly explains the consistent 'dog' references in the accounts of Marcion.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 09:49 PM

The great Nikos Kokkinos explains why we should believe that 12 BC makes the most sense for the original date of the gospel narrative. The beginning of the article:

Quote:

In my contribution to the first Nativity Conference, I suggested that Jesus was born in 12 B.C.

and then most importantly for my thesis his conclusion:

Quote:

Although the impression cannot be avoided that in both narratives, those of Matthew and Luke, we are dealing with mythological constructs and Christology, the idea that each may be based on a historical core, at least in regard to relative chronology, cannot be dismissed a priori ... Matthew's core information seems to have been the tradition that Jesus was born under Herod the Great in the year when a "great star" when seen in the sky. Luke's tradition was apparently the association of Jesus' birth with the year of a taxation assessment under Herod — for which perhaps an echo exists in Tertullian involving Saturninus. John's tradition seems to recall the year in which the Herodian Temple was completed. Extraordinarily enough, the dates of all three can be determined historically, and in the same year. Halley's Comet passed the earth in 12 B.C. Herod may have ordered an assessment in line with Augustus's in 12 B.C.; and the Temple was completed in 12 B.C.. What are the chances that we are dealing with mere coincidences?

Of course I think the critical bit of information is the completion of the temple in that year. Think about it. What year makes more sense to connect the story of Jesus to the destruction of the temple? It also makes sense that Herod completed the temple in a Jubilee year. But the appearance of God in a jubilee to announce its destruction (= that it was offensive) is critical to explain the subsequent cover up by Irenaeus et al.

Everyone reading this thread is witnessing what I consider to be the most plausible 'alternative theory' ever. It explains everything.

Clivedurdle · 02-26-2013, 10:16 PM

When was the Temple completed?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 10:24 PM

12 BCE according to Kokkinos = 15th of Augustus = the completion of the temple and = the completion of Jesus's adult one year ministry according to Clement [Stromata Book 7 see above]

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 11:33 PM

The temple of Jerusalem was completed in 12 BCE http://books.google.com/books?id=mNN...BCE%22&f=false

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 11:55 PM

With respect to duvduv's objection that the creed with Pilate was unknown at this time. Numerous studies have pointed to these passages in Irenaeus as proof of the opposite conclusion:

Quote:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. [Against Heresies 3.4.2]

The real question is why was it necessary to force barbarians to emphasize Jesus's crucifixion under Pilate specifically. The answer must be that there was another tradition - deemed heretical - which contradicted this understanding.

The idea that a specific primitive creed invoking Pilate was present during baptism is repeated throughout Irenaeus. Consider the retelling of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Book Four:

Quote:

For this reason, also, Philip, when he had discovered the eunuch of the Ethiopians' queen reading these words which had been written: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb is dumb before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away;" and all the rest which the prophet proceeded to relate in regard to His passion and His coming in the flesh, and how He was dishonoured by those who did not believe Him; easily persuaded him (the eunuch) to believe on Him, that He was Christ Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered whatsoever the prophet had predicted, and that He was the Son of God, who gives eternal life to men. And immediately when [Philip] had baptized him, he departed from him. For nothing else [but baptism] was wanting to him who had been already instructed by the prophets: he was not ignorant of God the Father, nor of the rules as to the [proper] manner of life, but was merely ignorant of the advent of the Son of God, which, when he had become acquainted with, in a short space of time, he went on his way rejoicing, to be the herald in Ethiopia of Christ's advent [Against Heresies 4.23.2]

and again in Book Five in relation to Paul's baptism:

Quote:

I have already observed, one person who had been born from the womb, and another who preached the Gospel of the Son of God; but that same individual who formerly was ignorant, and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in the third book, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, his former ignorance being driven out by his subsequent knowledge: just as the blind men whom the Lord healed did certainly lose their blindness, but received the substance of their eyes perfect, and obtained the power of vision in the very same eyes with which they formerly did not see; the darkness being merely driven away by the power of vision, while the substance of the eyes was retained, in order that, by means of those eyes through which they had not seen, exercising again the visual power, they might give thanks to Him who had restored them again to sight. [Against Heresies 5.12.5]

Another example of Irenaeus's obsessive - and seemingly inappropriate invocation of this formula at almost any opportunity he gets is also found in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching - "and there is none other name of the Lord given under heaven whereby men are saved, save that of God, which is Jesus Christ the Son of God, to which also the demons are subject and evil spirits and all apostate energies, by the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate." There is almost a magical power associated with confirming Pilate's name.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 12:22 AM

And from my post in the other thread of my teacher Professor Rory Boid of Monash University (whom I have to call back from three weeks ago!) exhaustive work establishing the original Samaritan sabbatical cycle which shows 12 BCE to be forty ninth year:

Quote:

Now we compare the synchronisations given by Abul-Fataḥ, writing in 1355 AD. [The references are to the page and line nos. of the edition by Eduardus Vilmar, Gotha, 1865. This is the only edition ever published]. At 178:9-12 he gives the correspondence of years of Creation with 756 AH [1355 AD], the year of finishing the book. This was meant to be the key to the chronology used throughout the book. At this point his original date has been replaced. The way it was done was so stupid there is no doubt. Someone added 756 to 5047 making 5803, that is, added the no. of Islamic years to the no. of absolute or solar years. Only ms. C has this reading, the original corruption. (The old part of ms. S finishes before the passages about the date of Muhammad. No St. Petersburg fragment has the section with the fourth synchronisation). This change must be earlier than the date of ms. C [1523], since this scribe would not have felt free to innovate. It is shown below that a secondary corruption derived from this can be dated to 1518, so the original mistake can be pushed back to 1500. Then the date was corrupted further. In ms. D [1545], this error has been changed to the erroneous figure of the year 5945 AM, with the addition of another 141 years. My guess is that someone saw that 5,803 years from Creation was not the date of composition, and thought it must be the date of copying. If it had been wrongly thought that the figure 5047 given by AF was meant to synchronise with the Hijrah, the year starting 5,803 years from Creation would have been thought to have been 756 (5,803 – 5,047) solar years from the Hijrah, what we would call 1378 AD. This would have been thought to be only 23 years from the composition of the book. Corruption so early would have been thought impossible, so it could have been assumed the date was mant to be the date of writing out an authoritative ms., perhaps by AF himself. The scribe would then have felt free to change the date to the current one, which would have been the year starting 5,803 + 141 = the year 5945 AM = 897 years (5944 - 5047) after 621 AD = 1518 AD. This is only 27 years before the copying of ms. D. This secondary corruption is in all later mss. (There is another sign of very early corruption and loss of tradition. In all mss. the Samaritan representative before Muḥammad is called Ṣarmaṣa. Both AF and the Continuation have this form. St. Petersburg fragments K and P of AF have the same. This is not a Hebrew or Aramaic name. Any familiarity with Samaritan mss., even the most superficial, will tell you that there hs been a corruption at a stage when the name was written in Hebrew letters, and that it ought to be Yarmayya [= Masoretic Yirmeya], which is a Hebrew name. Something is wrong if a name as important as this can be forgotten).

The original main synchronisation being lost, we have to rely on inference from the two secondary statements.

AF 84:1-5. From Creation till the end of the days of Azqayya the High Priest is said to be 4,100 years. From the start of the Fanuta till this date is said to be 1,046 years. This would make the time since Entry 1306 years. These dates assume a period of 3,054 years from Creation to the start of the Fanuta, which is correct, as was shown above. His officiate is said to have lasted 21 years. In his days came Alexander the Macedonian. The death of Alexander is mentioned at 92:9-11. Descriptive but not narrative material about Azqayya then continues till the mention of his death at 93:14-15. It says at 92:10-11 that when Azqayya heard of Alexander’s death he worried about the fate of the Samaritans under the next ruler. The length of time from the death of Alexander till the death of Azqayya is not directly stated. As it is implied that he never knew the policy of the next ruler, it could not have been long. Alexander died on 11/6/323 BC, about three months from the start of the Samaritan year in March. AF always works in whole elapsed years unless there is some special reason otherwise. When he says Azqayya died 4100 years from Creation, he means he died in the year 4101 AM, as did Alexander. [AM = Anno Mundi]. The start of the Samaritan year starting in March 1 B.C. will be 4100 + 322 = 4,422 years from Creation. The year starting in late March 1 AD will then be 4424 AM, starting 4,423 years from Creation, or 1630 of Entry, starting 1,629 years from Entry.

The second synchronisation by AF needs an appreciation of the context and the terminology if it is to be understood properly. This date is important to AF. He gives it four times over. At AF 172:16-18 it is said that from the start of the Fanûta till the coming of Muḥammad is 1,993 years, and from Creation 5,047 years. This is said to have been at the end of the officiate of Elaazar, which lasted 25 years. This would be 2,253 years from Entry. At 176:12 the “appearance” of Muḥammad is said to have been 1,993 years from the start of the Fanuta. At 175: 13 the appearance of Muḥammad is said to have been 5,047 years from Creation. At 178:9 the date for the coming of Muḥammad is given again. (In the extant mss., this is said to have been in the 12th year of the officiate of Elaazar, conradicting what was said at 172 16-18. Whoever first witlessly changed the date of composition made this change as well, according to some theory). If AF is being consistent with his use of this expression in other places in the book, this “coming” of Muḥammad would have to be his arrival in Palestine. In the context, this can only mean the first Islamic conquests in Palestine. Furthermore, after the second mention of the date of the coming of Muḥammad at 178:9-12, some of the mss. have an account of the effect of the Islamic invasion of Palestine. [A word of explanation. Although Islamic historians do not recognise campaigns by Muḥammad into Syria, the Christian historians unanimously do. For the present purpose it does not matter who is right. The point is that AF recognises such campaigns]. This interpretation is confirmed by the way Muḥammad is first mentioned, starting at 172:15. The social collapse of the last years of Byzantine rule has just been described. The tyranny and oppression of the Byzantine administration was ghastly. Immediately afterwards comes the dating of the “coming”of Muḥammad, which would have ended the reign of terror. Then comes the ending of the original book, with an emphatic statement of Muhammad’s benevolence to “all the Torahs” [kull ash-Sharâ’i‘] meaning all adherents of a revealed book, not just Samaritans but Christians and Jews as well.

AF followed an existing practice in giving the date mentioned for the arrival of the Islamic forces in Palestine and south-west Syria. At the end of the original book by AF there is an attachment in some of the mss. This is a history of the next 300 years, finished soon after the last event mentioned, which means several centuries before AF. At the start of this attachment is another version of the narrative of the granting by Muḥammad of a guarantee of protection. Immediately after this, there is the same dating of 5,047 years since Creation as originally given by AF, but instead of saying till the coming or appearance of Muḥammad, it says “till the rule of Ishmael”. This does not mean the Islamic forces had stable control of the whole of Palestine this early. The meaning is to be turned round. It means control by Byzantium over the country had ended. Complete stable control had become inevitable. The Byzantine Era was over.

The figures given by AF for the death of Alexander and the coming or appearance of Muḥammad are 947 years apart. The timespan from June 323 to July 622 AD, the date of the Hijrah, is 944 years. The coming of Muḥammad or the start of the rule of Ishmael is thus in the year starting in March 625 AD. If the narrative by AF and the Continuation are both read carefully, it will be seen that the compact with the people of Palestine was made by Muḥammad after the Hijrah and before the invasion of Palestine. This is historically right. Islamic policy on such matters was worked out in Yathrib immediately after the Hijrah. It will also be seen that the coming or appearance of Muḥammad is soon after the making of the compact. The dating of 625 AD is confirmed, along with the synchronisation with the year starting 5,047 years from Creation.

AF had a reason for saying “the coming of Muḥammad” or “the appearance of Muḥammad” instead of “the rule of Ishmael”. The arrangement of the material shows that Muḥammad was seen as the saviour of the Samaritans, and all Palestinians, from Byzantium. Only a messianic figure would be said to have “appeared”. The year starting 5,047 years from Creation was the year starting 2253 years from Creation, as AF tells us more than once. This is the year 5048 AM or 2254 of Entry, which is a forty-ninth year, the year before a Jubilee Year. It is highly remarkable that memory of this figure should have got lost as early as 1500 AD, only a hundred and fifty years from the book’s composition.

Here then are the conclusions from the two remaing synchronisations. Abul-Fataḥ synchronised March 323 BC with the passage of 4,100 years from Creation and the passage of 4,100 take away 2,794 = 1,306 years from Entry. He synchronised the year starting in March 625 AD with the year starting 5,047 years from Creation. The year starting in March 1 AD must be 4,100 + 323 = 4,423 years from Creation and 1,306 + 323 = 1,629 years from Entry. March 38 AD, the end of the year starting in March 37 AD, must be 4423 + 37 = 4,460 years from Creation and 1,629 + 37 = 1,666 years from Entry. So in March 37 AD a forty-ninth year starts and in March 38 AD a Jubilee Year starts.

The point then is that it makes perfect sense that Herod would have waited for a forty ninth year or a Jubilee to complete the temple. It shows (a) the Samaritan system of Abul Fath was original and (b) that the Sadducean system originally agreed with the Samaritans (hardly surprising given Charlesworth's recent discoveries). Moreover - if I am correct - 12 BCE, the fifteenth year of Augustus reckoned according to the Anni Augusti, was also the year that Jesus was originally understood to have floated down from heaven ultimately to condemn the offensiveness of this structure.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 12:43 AM

Sabbatical year/Jubilee

12 BCE/11 BCE
37 CE/38 CE
86 CE/87 CE
135 CE/136 CE = bar Kochba revolt (identified as falling in a Jubilee)
184 CE/185 CE
233 CE/234 CE
282 CE/283 CE
331 CE/332 CE etc.

Tenorikuma · 02-27-2013, 07:27 AM

What is there to connect that coin to Pilate? It only has the emperor's name on it.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 09:54 AM

Justin Martyr in the Dialogue makes an unusual interpretation of Psalm 22. When you look at the psalm it looks like it would be natural to interpret the entire text as pertaining to the Passion narrative. Yet strangely Herod the Great is invoked and the slaughter of the firstborn. Why unless Herod the Great was originally 'Herod'? Of course the original interpretation has been 'corrected' (= Irenaeus):

Quote:

And the expression, 'Fat bulls have beset me round,' He spoke beforehand of those who acted similarly to the calves, when He was led before your teachers. And the Scripture described them as bulls, since we know that bulls are authors of calves' existence. As therefore the bulls are the begetters of the calves, so your teachers were the cause why their children went out to the Mount of Olives to take Him and bring Him to them. And the expression, 'For there is none to help,' is also indicative of what took place. For there was not even a single man to assist Him as an innocent person. And the expression, 'They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,' designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him. And he died before Christ came to the dispensation on the cross which was given Him by His Father. And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: 'And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.' [Dialogue 103]

Of course the text is further corrected by Irenaeus to distance Herod the Great from the lion of the Psalm:

Quote:

Or He meant the devil by the lion roaring against Him: whom Moses calls the serpent, but in Job and Zechariah he is called the devil, and by Jesus is addressed as Satan, showing that a compounded name was acquired by him from the deeds which he performed. For 'Sata' in the Jewish and Syrian tongue means apostate; and 'Nas' is the word from which he is called by interpretation the serpent, i.e., according to the interpretation of the Hebrew term, from both of which there arises the single word Satanas. For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' For as he had deceived Adam, so he hoped that he might contrive some mischief against Christ also. Moreover, the statement, 'All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax, melting in the midst of my belly,' was a prediction of that which happened to Him on that night when men came out against Him to the Mount of Olives to seize Him. For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:' His heart and also His bones trembling; His heart being like wax melting in His belly: in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him. Further, the expression, 'My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue has cleaved to my throat,' was a prediction, as I previously remarked, of that silence, when He who convicted all your teachers of being unwise returned no answer at all.

But elsewhere it is clear that for Justin Herod the Great was originally figured in all of the references. In other words, 'the lion' in Psalm 22 was Herod the Great not Herod Antipas and more importantly - not merely with respect to the slaughter of the innocents but as the 'Herod' who witnessed the crucifixion. The original passage in Justin must have read:

Quote:

And the expression, 'They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,' designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him. And he died before Christ came to the dispensation on the cross which was given Him by His Father. And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: 'And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.'

The clearest proof that this occurred - i.e. that all the information which catapults us to the 'fifteenth year of Tiberius - is that the discussion in Justin suddenly goes back to Herod the Great identifying him as the 'king of Assyria' in Psalm 22 again:

Quote:

For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character. For you know," continued I, "that the Holy Spirit oftentimes announces such events by parables and similitudes; just as He did towards all the people in Jerusalem, frequently saying to them, 'Thy father is an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite [Dialogue 77]

And then a little earlier we see a profound interest in Herod the Great from Justin's Jewish opponent

Quote:

But if any of you say to us, Could not God rather have put Herod to death? I return answer by anticipation: Could not God have cut off in the beginning the serpent, so that he exist not, rather than have said, 'And I will put enmity between him and the woman, and between his seed and her seed?' Could He not have at once created a multitude of men? But yet, since He knew that it would be good, He created both angels and men free to do that which is righteous, and He appointed periods of time during which He knew it would be good for them to have the exercise of free-will; and because He likewise knew it would be good, He made general and particular judgments; each one's freedom of will, however, being guarded. Hence Scripture says the following, at the destruction of the tower, and division and alteration of tongues: 'And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them of all which they have attempted to do' ... He taught that all men ought to hope in God who created all things, and seek salvation and help from Him alone; and not suppose, as the rest of men do, that salvation can be obtained by birth, or wealth, or strength, or wisdom. And such have ever been your practices: at one time you made a calf, and always you have shown yourselves ungrateful, murderers of the righteous, and proud of your descent. For if the Son of God evidently states that He can be saved, [neither] because He is a son, nor because He is strong or wise, but that without God He cannot be saved, even though He be sinless, as Isaiah declares in words to the effect that even in regard to His very language He committed no sin (for He committed no iniquity or guile with His mouth), how do you or others who expect to be saved without this hope, suppose that you are not deceiving yourselves?

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

02-26-2013, 10:16 PM	#33
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	When was the Temple completed?

02-26-2013, 10:24 PM	#34
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	12 BCE according to Kokkinos = 15th of Augustus = the completion of the temple and = the completion of Jesus's adult one year ministry according to Clement [Stromata Book 7 see above]

02-26-2013, 11:33 PM	#35
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The temple of Jerusalem was completed in 12 BCE http://books.google.com/books?id=mNN...BCE%22&f=false

02-27-2013, 12:43 AM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Sabbatical year/Jubilee 12 BCE/11 BCE 37 CE/38 CE 86 CE/87 CE 135 CE/136 CE = bar Kochba revolt (identified as falling in a Jubilee) 184 CE/185 CE 233 CE/234 CE 282 CE/283 CE 331 CE/332 CE etc.

02-27-2013, 07:27 AM	#39
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	What is there to connect that coin to Pilate? It only has the emperor's name on it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.