WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Thank you for providing the link to “Studies of Eusebian and post-Eusebian Chronography”.I am impressed by the study.
The chronologists found Josephus’ writings useless for chronology in their scholarly treatises because they used only one calendar--a lunisolar calendar wherein a month is intercalated.Try also using a purely lunar calendar with 354/355 days in a year.The purely lunar calendar is just numbered from 1 to 12 and where the first month falls, it is the name used, whether it be in the Jewish calendar, the Macedonian calendar, etc. That is why I say that the Jews were using two calendars
during the time of Jesus.One is for civil usage and the other, for religious usage.Passover, a religious festival and not season-dependent, is in the first month of the purely lunar calendar.
Best regards, Aristeo Canlas Fernando
Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home) http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/ "The Internet is mightier than the sword."
On 2012-04-09 13:00, Aristeo Fernando wrote regarding my post on the value of Josephus' writings in chronology:
> Could you please list down some of those who have tried using Josephus’ years?
As I said, _all_ chronologers of
biblical events did that. See some references in "Studies of Eusebian and post-Eusebian Chronography", on line at
[http://books.google.de/books?id=9R_CGC9wL9MC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=richard+w.+burgess+witold+witakowski+Josephus+Appendix+2&source=bl&ots=DFM9OPQYYS&sig=Hg4KsYx5r1F711V3yLzANJEBAxM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rth9T-fJLor2sga21OGTCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false] (The link may have to be pasted into a single line.)
> Do you know why they failed?
I've explained that in my previous post -- these chronologists did not "fail" but they found out that Josephus' writings are next to useless for chronology. The reference above gives some technical details; every modern scholarly treatise on the date of the birth or of the crucifixion of Jesus also gives such details.
> Do you
know why they say that Josephus cannot > contribute much? Because they were using a lunisolar > calendar like what the Jews > are using these days. Try using a purely lunar calendar > and you might get it right.
Well yes, I do know why they conclude that Josephus cannot contribute much to chronology, and I have explicated two major reasons for it in my previous post.
No, Josephus has never used a lunar calendar in those dates where he gives a month name. As I have stated in my previous post, Josephus used several calendars in his works, with a special notation, but none of them is a lunar calendar. His method of using Macedonian month names for all these calendars does not even work for a lunar calendar.
When Josephus gives only year counts between events, these numbers are
taken directly from the bible, and thus the year length is completely uncertain. When the age of a person is given as 969 "years" (as in the bible), then such a "year" can be at most 40 d long, and cannot be any approximation of the tropical year, nor any approximation of 12 synodic months (unless it is taken as chronologically meaningless).
> The following are what I got: > 2069 BC – Foundation of the city of Jerusalem > 1522 BC – Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt > 1100 BC – start of King David’s reign > 1058 BC – Start of building of house of the Lord > 637 BC – Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians > 33 BC – Birth of Jesus Christ (May 23) > 1 BC – Death of Jesus Christ (August 17) > AD 44 – Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans
Only the last event can be
dated with an uncertainty of under a year. The Roman conquest of Jerusalem took place around J0070-09; and the triumph on J0071-04-24 in Alexandria is documented by an Egyptian papyrus ([POxy 2725]). So the last date in your list is grossly incorrect: Titus could not have taken Jersusalem when he was only 5 years old.
Before you propose yet another time line for biblical events, you should first look at what other people have proposed, and why. No serious chronographer will consider your proposals if these proposals do not even satisfy the (few and weak) constraints established in the literature.
I find it arrogant to pretend to know better than hundreds of painstakingly careful investigators, without knowing what these investigators are saying, let alone
knowing why they are saying it.