Minimalist

I'm not going to lose any sleep over what Eusebius says.

spin

So you've got no defense for your opening post. You just wanna believe that Eusebius did some calculations and came up with a conflicting figure. This is just supporting the fact that Eusebius is not a historical source for the information.

And you wanna ignore the fact that Augustus was in power from 43 BCE. As Suetonius wrote (Divus Augustus 8):

Augustus "first held the government in conjunction with Mark Antony and Marcus Lepidus, then with Antony only, for nearly twelve years, and at last in his own hands during a period of four and forty years."

Suetonius obviously looked at Augustus's rule as having started when Eusebius seemed to, when the latter said, "It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus" in combination with "the twenty-eight after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end", for reading the implications of what Eusebius said in the light of Suetonius these indications give the same date.

If Eusebius believed that these indicators yielded the same date, why don't you attempt to see how he got there rather than fabricating some useless conflict?? He is not a historical source on the dating.

Stop projecting your own expectations.


spin

aa5874

I have already put 43BCE in the equation, look at post#4. There is still a problem with the birth of Jesus occuring at the taxation of Cyrenius at about 6CE.

Post #4 So, the dates given by Eusebius have not been resolved as yet.

Minimalist

There is no way to reconcile the conflicting dates of "Matthew" and "Luke"...let alone Eusebius.

Obviously the story grew over time.


Most legends do.

spin

Did you note that I was dealing with his first two indications? The Cyrenius datum comes apparently directly from Luke. Eusebius is irrelevant to that for he merely uses a source. You must take up your grievance in the appropriate context, ie Luke -- the erroneous Lucan use of Cyrenius being something which we have discussed a lot here.

I'm not attempting to resolve the irrelevant dates of Eusebius. These dates have no use in history -- merely in your wayward desire to find wrongness. It's good to see that you're reading more widely though.

Ancient sources are useful mainly for their own times. Beyond that, what they preserve of earlier writers can at times be helpful, though it makes the information much more complicated to use.


spin

aa5874

But I noticed you used an ancient source to show that Augustus was some kind of ruler since 43 BCE, so maybe they are useful at anytime. And perhaps gLuke's source, like Eusebius, was Josephus for the census of Cyrenius.

Even if you find the dates of Eusebius irrelevant, there may be others who take the opposite view and believe these dates can be resolved easily.

spin

Actually, what I did was merely to help you out of the interpretative error ("Now, Augustus reigned from 27BCE to 14CE, and forty two years would put the birth of Jesus at about 14CE."). Suetonius simply closed the matter.

You wouldn't know. Neither would the pundits.

Should there be laws to stop people from making mistakes?

If you are interested in history, Eusebius himself is no help for a period 300 years before his time. If you are not, make hay...


spin

aa5874

But, you just used an ancient source, Suetonius, to show that Eusebius actually reconciled the 28th year after death of Cleopatra and Anthony with the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, which woud be about 2-1BCE.

So, maybe Eusebius used Suetonius, just like you, to come up with his dates.

It would appear to me that Eusebius had many ancient sources available to him, probably a lot more than anyone today would have, and he might have just simply made errors in trying to make Jesus a figure of history.

spin

Referring to Suetonius was an attempt to get you out of making a questionable assumption, not to show what Eusebius "actually" did.

What Eusebius may have had available to him is -- sadly -- irrelevant. Unless of course you are waltzing for pleasure. Do find a new dance. :wave:


spin

aa5874

But this is what you actually said: Happily, I do not support your view.