Larsguy47

Actually, I shouldn't have brought this up. I didn't deduce that they were the same person, I found it in a very old book that I don't want to divulge since it exposes the writer. So I'm just presenting whether or not it can be absolutely disproved or not. Do we have enough history on Phaedo to absolutely prove he was a real, different person than Aristotle or just invented by Xenophon and Plato and Aristotle. They must have been paid lots of money by the Persians to suppress all that Greek history and revise everything.

This might be one reason why exosing the revision is not that popular. I don't think anybody really cares if Jerusalem falls in 587BCE or 529BCE (except maybe Jehovah's witnesses), but it's the Classical Greek Department who has to make the big changes.

PLEASE, give me your opinion about this, if you will. Based upon Biblical chronology as promoted by Martin Anstey in the 1800's in "Romance of Biblical Chronology" he believed that 82 years of Persian history was fake and dated the 1st of Cyrus c. 455BCE. When I started researching this I was able to remove the 82 years, 56 actual years from the Greek period with the addition of 26 years to the NB Period. It's the reduction of 26 years in the NB Period that makes the time of Cyrus 82 years offset, but the Greek Period was only revised by 56 years.

My research suggests the Persians first tried to just add 30 years to the reign of Darius so that his 6 years became an even 36 years, likely easier to change that way. But they were only able to squeeze out 26 years from the NB Period. This meant that when the new timeline was laid out, Darius' rule extended past his own death by 4 years. Thus historically per Herodotus, Darius dies of mysterious, uneventfal causes four years after Marathon.

But when you recalculate Greek history from the Peloponnesian War dated to 403 BCE, based upon a much better eclipse event occurring in January of 402BCE, and you remove an extra 30 years between the Persian and PPW, then the 30-year peace agreement ending the 10th year of the war marks the true date for Xerxes invasion. The 10th year would fall in 394 so Xerxes' invasion would have occurred in 424BCE. This checks out as an Olympic year and everything. But that brings us to 434BCE for the Battle of Marathon. Per the Bible, if you date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE, the 6th of Darius falls in 434/433 BCE, with the temple being completed by Artaxerxes that same regnal year of Darius in Adar, the 12th month. This suggests Darius actually died at Marathon, and of course, that would make it even more significant for Xerxes to punish Athens, rather than just trying to get its reputation back after losing at Marathon. The death of a father is very motivating.

Finally, I came upon this strange reference in Herodotus which I think was meant to imply, inded, Darius was at Marathon and died there. Here's the reference:

The following is the account which he himself, as I have heard, gave of the matter: he said that a gigantic warrior, with a huge beard, which shaded all his shield, stood over against him; but the ghostly semblance passed him by, and slew the man at his side. Such, as I understand, was the tale which Epizelus told.

Now we know the King of Persia was known for his huge beard down to his lap, but just the kings. No one else was permitted to have such a beard so long:



So what do you think? Is Herodotus here actually trying to hint that Darius I died at Marathon? If so, this would prove that he knew about the revisionism and was preserving the true events in his history while on casual and direct reading he is agreeing with the Persian government changes.

Based upon this reference, if we link the death of Darius with the Battle of Marathon, we harmonize Greek and Persian history as long as we put Darius to death in his sixth year, just as the Bible says.

Now I find it quite a coincidence that I can reconstruct Greek history by the correct eclipse match and end up dating the Battle of Marathon where the Bible dates the sixth year of Darius but also his death that year when dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. That's too many coincidences! But not if it was the original history.

By the way, the extra 56 years were not added until the time of Xenohpon, so Herodotus' revised history was only offset by the extra 30-year rule of Darius and the reduction of 26 years from the NB Period. So the only ripple was Darius dying 4 years later than Marathon instead of at Marathon. But after Darius' death the timeline was back in place in Herodotus' time. Thus in 424BCE he mentions an eclipse in the spring that Artaxerxes saw when he began his invasion of Persia. Indeed, there was an eclipse visible in Persia in 424BCE and obviously the one Herodotus is referring to. But when Xenphon's revisions added 56 years to the history, it simply pushed everything back 56 years including the invasion of Xerxes from 424BCE back to 480BCE, where it is now! But of course, there's not eclipse in the spring in 480 BCE!!

Just in case you wanted to know where that eclipse went. Herodotus wasn't making it up.

Thanks, if you want to give your opinion on the above. I won't challenge it; just would like to know what you thought.

Larsguy47 :wave:

Larsguy47

Hi Red Dave. Wow. If ever we meet in person, it's a luxury dinner for two on me at Starbucks! Sorry for keeping you in the dark on this but, here's EXACTLY how the revision by Xenophon worked.

Originally there were just 20 years between the Pelopponesian and Persian Wars 404-424BCE. There was an eclipse that ocurred in the first year of the war, a total eclipse in Greece, the first year of the Olympic Cycle. So what Xenophon did was first add the standard 30 years to that interval to make it 50 years between the wars. But then he found an eclipse in 431BCE that also fell in the first year of the Olympic cycle, it was seen in Greece but not total in Greece. Still that was too hard to resist so he moved the PPW back to 431BCE which was 28 years.

BUT...problem. The Olympics. Instead of 20 years, which is divisible by 4, the 50 years was not divisible by 4. So the Olympics which occurred the year of Xerxes' invasion (424 BCE) was not being played in 482BCE, which was 50 years (exclusive) earlier than the new date for the PPW (432+50=482BCE). So because it was so well documented that the Olympics were played during the year of Xerxes' invasion, they made an adjustment down two years to 480BCE. Thus the total original addition of years of 58 years, 30 added historically and 28 by moving the PPW war back in time 28 years, became now a net addition of just 56 years.

NOW... since we know that, we are now looking for weaknesses and inconsistencies for the period between those wars all the way down through the end of the PPW. This also means that a lot of people who were associated with Socrates who got moved back in time, get moved forward again. So what you have told me is simply that Aristophanes and Socrates as contemporaries are moved together when we make the adjustment. Thus we would move his play "The Clouds" now dated to 523BCE, the 8th year of the war to 396BCE. By now Plato is already 32 years of age. So it would be interesting just how many times Plato mentions Aristophanes and how many times Aristophanes mentions Plato, whether as a very young boy or as an adult!

So thanks.

Larsguy47

ADDENDUM:

OOPS, RED DAVE! GUESS WHAT I FOUND? Thanks to you?


Both Plato and Xenohpon, have versions of the Symposium. Xenophon claims he was actually there, but he would have only been 8 years of age, so the Symposium must have been dated historically to around 423BCE as well.

But things seem a little different when in 396 BCE Plato would have been 32 and Xenophon 35 and Socrates 39. Of course they were both there with all these famous people but after the revisionism had to pretend they were not. It's obvious if they were both there why they would both record the event. But why would both do it if they were just in their youth?

So thanks, we knew Xenophon and Plato and Aristophanes were all adultsat the Symposium!!

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
And deprive us of all this entertainment. Never!

From Larsguy47:
If it's an old book, what's the problem. You have never produced any evidence of this book, so the operative hypothesis is that it doesn't exist.

From Larsguy47:
No you didn't. You presented it as true. You are backpeddling.

From Larsguy47:
Yes. You are the only person I have ever met you entertained the bizarre hypothesis that Phaedo and Aristotle were the same person.

From Larsguy47:
A much better hypothesis, borne out in other assertions you have made, is that all this is nonsense.

From Larsguy47:
Don't hold your breath that it will happen.

From Larsguy47:
Right. Keep it up and you'll have Socrates as a contemporary of Hegel.

From Larsguy47:
I'll leave this to others.

From Larsguy47:
There is no justification for doing this other than it fits your bizarre schema.

From Larsguy47:
I'll leave this to other. I don't want to hog all the fun.

From Larsguy47:
This is fun. We are here revising Greek and Persian history based on an interpretation of a dream recorded by Herodotus.

This is about as reliable as the vision of Constantine.

From Larsguy47:
If you start playing fast and loose with history, as you do, you can prove almost anything,

From Larsguy47:
More fun for others, if they have the patience.

From Larsguy47:
Now you know what, and others, think.

Yes, I know you weren't addressing me.

Going back to the top, since you haven't been able to adduce an iota of proof that Phadeo is Aristotle, it's all bullshit anyway.

By the way, you would have to revise every other date in Greek history.

Rots of ruck.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
I'll pass, thanks. I only drink unpasteurized elephant milk, which they don't serve at Starbucks.

From Larsguy47:
I can hardly wait.

From Larsguy47:
Uhh, the Pelopponesian began in 431 BC, so we're off to a very bad start.

From Larsguy47:
There was, indeed, an eclipse in 431, but, as we have discussed, it was annular not total.

From Larsguy47:
Which cycle. Source plese.

From Larsguy47:
You have proof of this? Which ancient or modern historian has accused him of this?

From Larsguy47:
Amazing. And no one at the time noticed it.

From Larsguy47:
I'll give soeone else the pleasure of deciphering this nonsense, if they have the patience.

From Larsguy47:
We don't know it, since you made it all up.

From Larsguy47:
This makes no sense whatsoever.

From Larsguy47:
You're welcome. For what, I'm not sure.

From Larsguy47:
Xenophon and Aristophanes are mentioned. There is no mention of Plato. He wasn't there.

And you still have defaulted on the initial premise of this thread, which I'm going to keep bringing up:

You have produced no evidence, other than numerology, and you don't like the eclipse of 431, that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

NO, I don't have proof, only deduced presumptions. The actual reference claims there were 50 years between the wars. But when you place 50 years between the wars by adding 50 + 1 year to 431BCE, you get 482BCE. That's not where it is dated, it is dated in 480BCE. So the text doesn't match. That is suspicion for revisionism. Any error lke that. Further the eclipse doesn't match, so I found one that did. When that was tested, however, it checked out with the 455 BCE chronology, so it is assumed it was correct.

I suspect he was, as well as Xenophon.

RED DAVE[/QUOTE]

Well that's a matter of opinion. I proved that Plato was an adult when the PPW war broke out by "The Delian Problem". Aristotle mentions a man he never knew 80 times. No, no evidence whatever.

Lars

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
This makes no sense and is not responsive to what I just wrote.

From Larsguy47:
Gobbledygook and has nothing to do with what I posted.

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
Since there is no reason to redate the Peloponnesian War, this is nonsense.

From Larsguy47:
From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
Based on nothing but numerology and historical fantasies.

From Larsguy47:
Source please.

From Larsguy47:
You are playing with numbers as usual.

From Larsguy47:
And your assumption is wrong.

From Larsguy47:
He wasn't there.

From Larsguy47:
Since Plato doesn't mention himself, and Xenophon, who was there, doesn't mention him, you are fantasizing. Unless, of course, you were there.

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
What you did was quote a legend fromt wo to three hundred years later and claimed that was proof. Doesn't cut.

From Larsguy47:
Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, who was a pupil of Socrates. Socrates was the most prominent of Greek philosophers. So what's the problem that he mentions Socrates?

From Larsguy47:
Correct for once.

RED DAVE

Pataphysician

Well we have no evidence he was a created person, and no evidence that if he was created, it was to cover up a former Aristotle. Just not mentioning Aristotle being alive during Socrates time period would seem to work just fine, and no one would figure it out. Why would the Persians want to add a paltry number of years to their reign? What benefit would they gain that would be worth the cost of creating even such minor personages as Phaedo? Not to mention the inscriptions and adding all those fake Archons of Athens and Rulers of Sparta. How would Aristotle be in on this when he worked for Alexander the Great, who defeated the Persians, what would be the point after their defeat? Your theory creates so many over piling assumptions, that we can neatly reject it with Occam's Razor.

The reason it's not popular is that that the theory of revision is not tenable.

Well, Firstly I looked up "Romance of the Biblical Chronology" and it was written in 1913 by some Reverend. Why would anyone want to fake 82 years of complex history, sounds pretty dubious to me.


Why would they want to add 30 years?

This is based on your bizarre reading of Ezra 6:14, which merely states that in accordance with the Dictates of Cyrus, Darius(the 1st), and Atraxerxes(the 1st, and these Dictates are given to us in the earlier chapters of Ezra) the Temple should be built, so it is and finished in the sixth year of Darius II, there is nothing in the text that implies that Artxerxes II(or that Atraxerxes I is still around) is king at the time of it being finished, so no reason to make him start his reign. So actually Ezra largely supports the general Chronology of Greeks and Persians, and to do otherwise makes Ezra read as if written by a total crackhead, Though maybe the Persians bribed the Jews to

Huh? that qoute has to do with what Epizelus saw in battle. Here's the part you left out where it states Epizelus was also miraculously deprived of his sight(sounds like he might have had an aneurysm). The more likely explanation of what Epizelus thought he saw, and what Herodotus thought as well as any Greek familiar with Homer, was this was Ares the god of war frenzy fighting with the Persians, much like he fought on the side of the Trojans who also lost. Any way you want to read it it seems more like a godlike being is what he thought he saw, thus the reason for him to lose his sight. The next line is a Miracle Herodotus relates has to do with a vision of of Apollo.

"The following marvel happened there: an Athenian, Epizelus son of Couphagoras, was fighting as a brave man in the battle when he was deprived of his sight, though struck or hit nowhere on his body, and from that time on he spent the rest of his life in blindness. I have heard that he tells this story about his misfortune: he saw opposing him a tall armed man, whose beard overshadowed his shield, but the phantom passed him by and killed the man next to him. I learned by inquiry that this is the story Epizelus tells.

To take it as a reference to Darius's death is quite a leap of huge magnitude.

As far as the beard reference, this is to show his height, the Persians used over 5 ft high rectangular shields, the fact that you could see his full beard above his shield, meant he was very tall for the time period.

The Bible nowhere states this.
You have done no reconstruction, just assertion that is totally unsupported
Umm the eclipse Herodotus mentions, happened before Xerxes sent his troops towards Greece, there was a solar eclipse visible in Persia in April 19 481, which is right about when Herodotus says it happened.

Benni72

Larsguy47, did Cambyses II exist, according to your chronology? If so, when did he reign? If not, why was he invented? Cambyses is mentioned in numerous Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and Babylonian sources, and his tomb was allegedly identified in 2006.

Larsguy47

If you mean Cambyses II, the son of Cyrus, the only revision would be that his 8-year sole rule is reduced to 7 with one year as co-ruler with his father.

That fits into first Cyrus and Darius the Mede conquering Babylon and Darius the Mede, who was a legitimate Babylonian king since he was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II, ruled for 6 years at Babylon. Then Cyrus became king over all of Persia and started rebuilding the empire. Cyrus began counting his years from this point and all other "kings" became "governors". But Darius the Mede apparently continued to rule over that part of the kingdom as a governor another 8 years, a total of 14 years ruling over Babylon. This meant he died one year before Cyrus who ruled 9 years. During that 1 year, Cambyses came to Babylon to rule as co-ruler with his father Cyrus before becoming King over all of Persia the next year.

The "historical" reduction of the Persian Period removed 1 year from Cambyses, 30 years from Darius I, combines the 21-year rule of Xerxes with Artaxerxes I (the same king), and removes 30 extra years from the 47-year rule of Artaxerxes II, who now rules just 17 years. By 358BCE, the beginning of the rule of Artaxerxes III history and chronology are back in sync.

Larsguy47

spin

As I pointed out here, our guy is abusing Ezra without even showing any understanding of the text. His use of Ezra 6:14 simply cannot be justified from a straight reading of the text.

The idea of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I being the same person is rather strange when both Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I left inscriptions, the latter not many, but one vase clearly indicates that Artaxerxes I was "the son of Xerxes, son of Darius, the Achaemenian". Certainly Xerxes I and Artaxerxes are not the same person.

That Gubaru and Ugbaru are the same person should be obvious when one reads the Nabonidus Chronicle. How this Gubaru (Gobryas) could be "Darius the Mede" though is a piece of necromancy that defies logical explanation.

And I do really get tired of people twiddling numbers and getting everything ballsed up due to obviously tendentious purposes. Even Ezra, a book which knows a lot of Persian kings, knows nothing about this Darius the Mede crap, but does know about both Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I.

Until Larsguy47 coughs up a little evidence to support his apparently meaningless rambles into historical matters, I would request a moratorium on his starting any new threads.


spin