Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-03-2013, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Ancient texts, beyond legal documents and tax records only reveal what people BELIEVED about a time, and do not directly correlate to history. The most you can garner from an ancient document is that at one time someone asserted the content.

I can't see the distinction between this assertion, and the one that runs "history is mostly bunk". I think in this form the statement crosses the line into obscurantism.

We must never make statements about the past which have no practical difference from saying that we can't know what happened in the past.

aa5874 · 09-03-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Indeed so ... until we realise that, in antiquity, they didn't have BC and AD. Which means that a documentary text with a contemporary date is not always as useful as it might be, unless we know how to assign whichever system of dates and months and regnal years / consular years / etc was in use to the corresponding year AD. The first to attempt this horrific task was our friend Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle, book 2; and he didn't always get it right.

It was not an horrific task for Eusebius because he merely used EARLIER sources and sometimes word for word. He may have plagerised Theophilus of Antioch of the late 2nd century.

Parts of Eusebius "Chronology" is found in book 3 of Theophilus "To Autolycus" c 175 CE.

Roger Pearse · 09-03-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Indeed so ... until we realise that, in antiquity, they didn't have BC and AD. Which means that a documentary text with a contemporary date is not always as useful as it might be, unless we know how to assign whichever system of dates and months and regnal years / consular years / etc was in use to the corresponding year AD. The first to attempt this horrific task was our friend Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle, book 2; and he didn't always get it right.

It was not an horrific task for Eusebius because he merely used EARLIER sources (snip)

I'm afraid that you have not understood the point being made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 09-03-2013, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Indeed so ... until we realise that, in antiquity, they didn't have BC and AD. Which means that a documentary text with a contemporary date is not always as useful as it might be, unless we know how to assign whichever system of dates and months and regnal years / consular years / etc was in use to the corresponding year AD. The first to attempt this horrific task was our friend Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle, book 2; and he didn't always get it right.

It was not an horrific task for Eusebius because he merely used EARLIER sources (snip)

I'm afraid that you have not understood the point being made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Well, I am afraid it is already exposed that Eusebius' Chronicle is a product of EARLIER writers.

Roger Pearse · 09-04-2013, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Indeed so ... until we realise that, in antiquity, they didn't have BC and AD. Which means that a documentary text with a contemporary date is not always as useful as it might be, unless we know how to assign whichever system of dates and months and regnal years / consular years / etc was in use to the corresponding year AD. The first to attempt this horrific task was our friend Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle, book 2; and he didn't always get it right.

It was not an horrific task for Eusebius because he merely used EARLIER sources (snip)

I'm afraid that you have not understood the point being made.

Well, I am afraid it is already exposed that Eusebius' Chronicle is a product of EARLIER writers.

May I refer the interested to Alden Mosshammer's book on Eusebius' Chronicle and the Greek Chronographic tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

aa5874 · 09-04-2013, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Indeed so ... until we realise that, in antiquity, they didn't have BC and AD. Which means that a documentary text with a contemporary date is not always as useful as it might be, unless we know how to assign whichever system of dates and months and regnal years / consular years / etc was in use to the corresponding year AD. The first to attempt this horrific task was our friend Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle, book 2; and he didn't always get it right.

It was not an horrific task for Eusebius because he merely used EARLIER sources (snip)

I'm afraid that you have not understood the point being made.

Well, I am afraid it is already exposed that Eusebius' Chronicle is a product of EARLIER writers.

May I refer the interested to Alden Mosshammer's book on Eusebius' Chronicle and the Greek Chronographic tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

May I refer you to Eusebius' Chronicle translated by Robert Bedrosian.

See http://rbedrosian.com/Downloads/Eusebius_Chronicle.pdf

Quote:

Among the sources cited and often quoted from at length are Berosus, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, Diodorus, Cephalion, various named translations of the Bible, the writings of Manetho, Porphyrius, and others.

It is already known that Eusebius merely used and copied [sometimes word for word] earlier sources for his Chronicle.

Theophilus of Antioch c 175 CE had already given a chronology of events from Creation to the Emperor Aurelius.

Theophilus' To Autolycus 3

Quote:

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned.

From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years.

And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years.

And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years.

And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years.

And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days.

And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years.

All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

Eusebius had a very simple task. He just copied earlier sources.

Roger Pearse · 09-05-2013, 03:15 AM

Nope. He had a task so difficult that even modern scholars are not sure what the right answer is. Should you care to learn something about the subject, you will understand why.

While I am always willing to help, people who clearly know nothing about a subject, and care less, yet continue to impudently assert their ignorance, do not make me very willing to share what I know.

Be ignorant.

DCHindley · 09-05-2013, 04:23 AM

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. While I am pretty sure he and other chroniclers knew that they were working with somewhat shaky sources, they managed to read a lot of divine symbolism into their chronological creations.

DCH (time for work ...)

DCH

aa5874 · 09-05-2013, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Nope. He had a task so difficult that even modern scholars are not sure what the right answer is. Should you care to learn something about the subject, you will understand why.

While I am always willing to help, people who clearly know nothing about a subject, and care less, yet continue to impudently assert their ignorance, do not make me very willing to share what I know.

Be ignorant.

Your statement is illogical.

We have Eusebius' Chronicle and it is clear that the author ADMITTED he used EARLIER sources.

Eusebius' Chronicle

Quote:

I have perused diverse histories of the past which the Chaldeans and Assyrians have recorded, which the Egyptians [g1] have written in detail, and which the Greeks have narrated as accurately as possible.

[These works] contain [information about] the times of kings and Olympiads (which translates "athletes"), about the brave deeds which were performed by barbarians and Greeks, by Aryans and non-Aryans [i.e., by peoples inside and outside the Iranian cultural world], and about the marvelous accomplishments of their generals, sages, braves, poets, storytellers, and philosophers.

I thought it would be appropriate to write down everything in brief, especially the beneficial and important things, and further to put adjacent to [these accounts] the history of the Hebrew patriarchs as revealed in the Bible.

Again, read Theophilus' To Autolycus 3 and you will see that Eusebius merely copied information that was already known for at least 150 years before which was circulated and documented in the Roman Empire since the 2nd century.

aa5874 · 09-05-2013, 06:27 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. While I am pretty sure he and other chroniclers knew that they were working with somewhat shaky sources, they managed to read a lot of divine symbolism into their chronological creations.

DCH (time for work ...)

DCH

You seem not to have read or fully understand Eusebius' Chronicle. The author of Eusebius' Chronicle ADMITTED he used EARLIER sources.

It is an extremely simply matter to compare the chronology of writings with the Hebrew Bible which was already known, circulated and documented in the Roman Empire at least 150 years BEFORE Eusebius.

Examine an excerpt from Theophilus 'To Autolycus 3

Quote:

For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth.

Lest, then, I seem to have made things plain up to the time of Cyrus, and to neglect the subsequent periods, as if through inability to exhibit them, I will endeavour, by God's help, to give an account, according to my ability, of the course of the subsequent times.

Eusebius' Chronicle, as admitted by the author, was a product of copying EARLIER sources.

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

09-05-2013, 03:15 AM	#27
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Nope. He had a task so difficult that even modern scholars are not sure what the right answer is. Should you care to learn something about the subject, you will understand why. While I am always willing to help, people who clearly know nothing about a subject, and care less, yet continue to impudently assert their ignorance, do not make me very willing to share what I know. Be ignorant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.