Subject: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 22 Nov 1996 03:49:11 GMT
Cont'd #2
Now Jesus Himself said that he would be "in the heart of the
earth" three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40). But the
resurrection was before dawn on Sunday morning (Matt. 28:1-
6). According to Jesus' own words then, Messiah must have been
(as Daniel says) "cut off" on Thursday _ "but not for himself".
So Jesus Christ was "cut off" when all the lambs were sacrificed _
between the two evenings, on Thursday, the day before He was
crucified, and He was "in the heart of the earth" until before
dawn on Sunday morning.
At the last supper He gave the disciples bread saying "this
is my body", and then wine saying "this is my blood . . . which is
shed for you for the remission of sins". He did not say "my
blood" which will be or is to be shed, because on that Thursday,
"between the two evenings" the Lamb of God had been "cut off" _
already sacrificed, His spiritual blood shed along with the blood
of all the other paschal lambs that had for so long prefigured the
sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Cut off "in the heart of the earth" our Lord suffered agony
in the garden of Gesthemane, and then death upon the cross! But
this essay on the day of the crucifixion would not be complete
without some comment on the remarkable way in which the Gospels
combine to fix the precise time of the crucifixion. It is one of
those cases where an apparent contradiction in the Bible turns out
to be essential to answering a question very accurately.
At the time of Christ the night and the day were each divided
into four watches. The first watch, from (approx.) 6 pm to 9 pm
was the "evening" watch; the second watch, from (approx.) 9 pm to
midnight was the "midnight" watch, the third watch, from midnight
to (approx.) 3 am was the "cockcrow"; and the fourth watch from
(approx.) 3 am to sunrise was the "morning" watch.
The daytime watches were (close to the equinox): from sunrise
(approx.) 6 am to three hours after sunrise (9 am), "the third
hour" watch; the next watch, to the sixth hour after sunrise
(noon), was "the sixth hour" watch; the next, to the ninth hour
after sunrise (3 pm) was "the ninth hour" watch; and the last, to
twelve hours after sunrise (6 pm) was "the twelfth hour" watch.
The synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark, and Luke) agree that our
Lord was on the cross from "the sixth hour" to "the ninth hour",
and they also agree that darkness covered the land from "the sixth
hour to "the ninth hour". Mark states that it was "the third
hour" when our Lord was placed on the cross. But John states that
Jesus was delivered to Pilate to be crucified at "about" the sixth
hour.
That close to the equinox "the third hour" ended at (nearly)
9 am, (three hours after sunrise), and "the sixth hour" began at
(nearly) 9 am (to end at six hours after sunrise), it is therefore
definite that our Lord had to be crucified at very nearly 9 am in
the morning, in order to agree with all four Gospels. John's
"about the sixth hour" has to mean that shortly before 9 am He was
delivered to be crucified, Mark's statement that it was "the third
hour" when He was crucified means that it was still not quite 9
(beginning the sixth hour). Then darkness fell over the land
sometime after the sixth hour (9) began.
Scholars who have supposed that John followed Roman
enumeration beginning at midnight, thereby making his "sixth hour"
sunrise, (approx.) 6 am, have not read Luke's narrative carefully
enough as to the events between "as soon as it was day" and the
delivery of our Lord to Pilate. Those events cannot be compressed
into a few minutes. Thus John used the Jewish enumeration, the
same as the synoptics, and his "about the sixth hour" together
with the synoptics, puts the crucifixion at almost exactly 9 am,
three hours after sunrise.
We have seen that Daniel's "weeks" were each 98 lunar months
(98 being the number of lambs sacrificed for the Feast of
Tabernacles) and the 69 weeks to the Messiah therefore ended 13
May 28 A.D. when, in accordance with Malachi's prophecy, Jesus
suddenly came to His temple (for Pentecost) and, upon learning
that the ministry of John the Baptist had been ended, quickly
returned to Galilee, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2,
which is what Matt. 4:12-17 tells us.
We have also seen that Jesus was selected "the Lamb of God"
at His baptism, while he was still "a male of the first year" (not
quite 30 years or 365 months of age), and he lodged in Bethany,
from 10 Nisan, as Ex. 12:3 required for all the lambs selected for
the Passover sacrifice; and that He was, as Daniel says, "cut off"
on Thursday afternoon, 14 Nisan, when all the lambs were
sacrificed. He was, then, "in the heart of the earth" three days
and three nights, where He was crucified on 15 Nisan, the day of
the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which John calls the Passover. He
arose from the dead before dawn on Sunday morning.
From the Gospels we know that the Crucifixion was certainly
at the time of a Passover. Now the Passover was required to be on
the 14th day of Nisan, and Nisan was required to be the first
month of the year (Ex. 12:2,6), as set by the New Moon and the
Vernal Equinox. Because of that Biblical law, Passover had to be
at a full moon, the first after the Vernal Equinox.
As explained, the synoptics all agree that it was the Friday
before the Sabbath, and John's Gospel says "it was paraskeue of
the Passover," which, properly translated reads "It was Friday of
the Passover". I also explained that the Crucifixion was on the
day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, (which was "called the
Passover" Luke 22:1) but which followed the actual Passover and
Paschal Supper in the night beginning 15 Nisan. The Feast of
Unleavened Bread was then before sundown of 15 Nisan. The year of
the Crucifixion, therefore, had to be a year in which 15 Nisan was
on a Friday.
If we can narrow the range of possible years, we have then
only to find what year, or years, in that range fit the
requirement that 15 Nisan fell on a Friday. To set the year or
possible years, and the date, we are given the following
information:
1. It occurred at the time of a Passover
2. It was on a Friday.
And in addition to that we also know from the Gospels that:
3. The event was presided over by Pontius Pilate, the Roman
Governor of Judea, and by Caiaphas the Jewish high priest.
We can therefore find a range of possible years for the event
if we can establish the years in which both Pilate and Caiaphas
were in office. Luke tells us that both were in office in the
15th year of Tiberius, when John the Baptist began his ministry
(Luke 3:1-3). Roman histories tell us that Tiberius was made co-
regent with Augustus, and emperor over Judea, 14 January in 13 AD
(see 1973 Enc. Brit. Vol. 21, p. 1105). For the Jews, then, the
reign of Tiberius began in January of 13 AD But Augustus died 17
Aug. 14 AD, making Tiberius sole ruler on that date. For the
Romans the reign of Tiberius therefore began 17 Aug. 14 AD, but
for the Jews (and Luke) the reign of Tiberius began 14 Jan. 13 AD
Josephus, the official Jewish historian, writing in Rome c.
90 AD, may have used either the 13 AD date or the 14 AD date in
reckoning the reign of Tiberius, when he tells us that "when
Tiberius had at this time appointed Caius to be his successor, he
outlived but a few days, and then died, after he had held the
government twenty-two years five months and three days."
(Antiquities, Bk. 18, Ch. 4, Sect. Depending on whether Josephus
used the 13 AD date or the 14 AD date for the beginning of the
reign of Tiberius, this puts the death of Tiberius at 17
May 35 AD or, at the latest, 20 January 37 AD.
Josephus also tells us "Pilate, when he had tarried ten years
in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the
order of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before
he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead." (Ibid. Ch. 6, Sect. 10).
So Pilate must have arrived in Judea no earlier than ten years
prior to 17 May 35 AD or 17 May of 25 AD and have departed not
later than 20 January 37 AD.
Turning attention now to Caiaphas: Josephus tells us that
Gratus appointed and deposed several high priests, ending with the
appointment of Caiaphas, and then he says: "When Gratus had done
those things he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea
eleven years, when Pontius Pilate was made his successor." (Ibid.
Ch. 2 Sect. 2). Which places Caiaphas in office before Pilate
came to Judea.
The earliest date for Pilate's arrival being 17 May 25 AD the
earliest possible date for the crucifixion, with both Pilate and
Caiaphas in office, was the following Passover in 26 AD (not 25 AD
because the Vernal Equinox will not permit a Passover as late as
May in any year).
We have noted that Vitellius, the powerful Roman consul and
governor of Syria, ultimately expelled Pilate. Also, some time
before that, he deposed Caiaphas at a Passover. Now we need to
know when that was, in order to establish the latest possible year
for the crucifixion under both Pilate and Caiaphas. Again turning
to Josephus we read: "Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to
Jerusalem; it was at the time which is called the Passover. . .
About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this
life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius," Thus
Vitellius deposed Caiaphas, at the time of a Passover, shortly
before the death of Philip in the twentieth year of Tiberius. The
latest date beginning Tiberius' reign being 17 August 14 AD, his
twentieth year was 33 or 34 AD and that makes the Passover of 33
AD the last possible Passover before Caiaphas was deposed as high
priest. We have now a range of possible years for the
crucifixion. It remains to be determined in which of the possible
years did 15 Nisan fall on a Friday.
The lunar month being just over 29.5 days, the Jewish
calendar at the time of Christ had alternating 29 and 30 day
months, beginning with Nisan and ending with Adar in ordinary
years, or Ve-Adar in embolismic years. The ordinary year of
twelve months had 355 days, and an embolismic year (when the extra
month Ve-Adar was added) had 384 days.
In the year 5 BC. astronomical new moon occurred 10 hours
and 45 minutes before sundown. The year then began with 1 Nisan
at sunset of 9 March. That year, from the Vernal Equinox of 5
BC. to the Vernal Equinox of 4 BC., had to be an embolismic
year, with the month Ve-Adar inserted, in order to prevent the
Passover (14 Nisan) of 4 BC. coming before the equinox.
The rule for fixing Nisan, prior to 70 AD, was that the full
moon in Nisan must be the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox
and must fall between midnight of 14 Nisan and midnight of 15
Nisan (because the passing over was originally at midnight of 15
Nisan _ Ex. 12:29). The new moon beginning Nisan was determined
by calculation, based on an 84 year calendar cycle, which in turn
was corrected to synchronize it with the famous 1260 year ("time,
times, and half a time") luni-solar calendar cycle. The
calculated 1 Nisan was verified by observation of the first
crescent of the new moon. With these data we can now calculate
and find that 15 Nisan fell on a Friday in 27, 30, and 33 AD
Since neither 27 AD nor 33 AD can be made to agree with the
ministry of John the Baptist beginning in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius, (or all the other data) we are left with 30 AD as the
only possible year for the crucifixion, when 15 Nisan fell on a
Friday. The years cited by twentieth century authorities for the
Crucifixion are generally either 29 or 30 AD, with the consensus
in favor of 30 AD And we have now seen that 29 AD is impossible
if the Crucifixion was on Friday 15 Nisan.
Authorities who have cited 29 AD (and there are many) make a
surprisingly trivial error. They all agree that the year was 782
A.U.C (the Roman A.U.C. calendar, dating from the founding of
Rome) but then make the error of equating A.U.C. years with Julian
years. But 782 A.U.C. did NOT correspond with 29 AD of modern
chronology for the simple reason that we count Julian years as
beginning 1 January, whereas the A.U.C. years, at that time, began
on 21 April. (And we call the last months of the year Sept. Oct.
Nov. Dec. = 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th month after April.) A similar
error crops up in connection with dating the nativity.
By overlooking that the A.U.C. year began 21 April, they
imagine that the Passover in 782 was the Passover of early 29 AD
But the year 782 A.U.C. did not start until after the Passover of
29 AD The Passover of 782 A.U.C. was therefore 6 April (Julian) =
14 Nisan, in 30 AD, and that was the Passover of the Crucifixion
on 7 April (Julian), 5 April (Greg.) in 30 AD Thus the
Crucifixion was indeed in 782 A.U.C. but it was the Passover of 30
AD, not 29 AD
Hippolytus ("Commentary on the Prophet Daniel" c. 200) states
that the Crucifixion was in the 18th year of Tiberius. Since
Tiberius was appointed emperor 14 January 13 AD, his 18th year
began 14 January 30 AD Thus Hippolytus agrees the crucifixion was
in 30 AD Julius Africanus (c. 195) similarly puts the crucifixion
in 30 AD Thus with 30 AD, not only do a host of interlocking
details fall into place, but we find that early Christian
historical writers also agree.
Of the possible years, therefore, only 30 AD fits with the
classic historians and with all the data we have reviewed,
(including the 69 weeks of Daniel). The crucifixion was, then, on
5 April (Greg.), 7 April (Julian) in 30 AD, at nine o'clock in the
morning.
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
Subject: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 22 Nov 1996 03:49:44 GMT
Cont'd 4 (conclusion)
The preceding message was apparently too long to paste.
The following is therefore the conclusion.
.
To determine the date of the nativity, the best starting
point is the death of Herod the Great. Now in describing the last
year of Herod's life Josephus tells us that one Matthias (the high
priest) was deposed by Herod and "the other Matthias" was burned.
He then adds "and that very night there was an eclipse of the
moon." (Ant. Bk. 17 Ch. 6 Sect. 4).
Since no lunar eclipse was visible at Jerusalem in early 3
BC. (prior to Passover), that lunar eclipse had to be the eclipse
of 11 Mar. (from about 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.) in 4 BC. Passover that
year was 30 days later, on 9-10 April in 4 BC. But because
Josephus mentions a Passover in the very next section, some
authorities have supposed that Herod died in 4 BC., during the 30
days between the eclipse and the Passover of 4 BC., and that our
Lord was therefore born before 4 BC.
Josephus, however, describes the events in the life of Herod
after the eclipse of the moon, and the description obviously
covers a period of many months. Furthermore Josephus describes the
events following the death of Herod in Ant. Bk. 18 Ch. 8 and 9,
after which Archelus led a 25-day funerary procession, and then
sent an army to prevent sedition against his succession being
spread during the following Passover. At that Passover "horsemen
slew three thousand men". That Passover cannot have been the one
less than 30 days after the lunar eclipse.
There is no way that the events in Herod's life following the
eclipse of the moon can be compressed into less than several
months, and there is no way that the activities of Archelus
following the death of Herod can be compressed into 30 days. At
the very least there could not have been less than 60 days between
the death of Herod and the Passover at which Archelus had the
three thousand men slaughtered. That Passover had to be in the
year 3 BC. following the lunar eclipse. In 3 BC. Passover was
31 March - 1 April. Whiston, in his 1737 translation of Josephus
says in a footnote "This Passover, when the sedition here
mentioned was moved against Archelus, was not one, but thirteen
months after the eclipse of the moon already mentioned".
Thus Herod did not die in early 4 BC., as some have
supposed, but died shortly before the Passover of 3 BC. This
agrees with the earliest and presumably, therefore, the most
reliable record of the date of Herod's death which is in the
Jewish chronicle Megillat Ta'anith, written c. 7 AD That record
puts the death of Herod at 1 Sebat. There was no 1 Sebat in our 4
BC. (due to the insertion of the extra month Ve-Adar in the
Jewish calendar). Therefore the 1 Sebat of Herod's death has to
be 18 Jan., in 3 BC. In that case there was an interval of 73
days between the death of Herod and the following Passover, which
is just sufficient time for the activities of Archelus reported by
Josephus. The events in Herod's life after the lunar eclipse
occupied thirteen months.
It has been observed that the Herodians had thought that
Herod was the Messiah because he procured the death of Antigonus
to make himself sole monarch in 37 BC. and, reckoning the "days"
of Daniel's weeks as 7 years each, the 69 weeks "to Messiah" ended
in 37 AD. Josephus tells us that
Herod reigned thirty-four years after the death of Antigonus in
the autumn of 37 BC.
In the customary enumeration of regnal years, Herod's first
year from the death of Antigonus was to the following 1 Nisan, and
his second year therefore began in the Spring of 36 BC. Then his
thirty fourth year ended at 1 Nisan of 3 BC., which again verifies
that his death was in early 3 BC., (presumably 18 January which
was 1 Sebat) which was his thirty fourth regnal year from the
death of Antigonus, and that agrees with Josephus.
Since Luke would not have followed the Roman reckoning, the
first year of Tiberius began for Luke on 14 Jan., 13 AD, and the
second year of Tiberius began with the new year (1 Nisan) in the
spring of that year (the customary Jewish enumeration of regnal
years was by calendar years). The fifteenth year of Tiberius,
when the ministry of John the Baptist began, thus extended from
the Spring of 27 AD to the Spring of 28 AD
The narrative of Matt. 3:3-12 allows several months of John's
ministry before he baptized Jesus, but not a year or more.
Therefore Jesus reached the age of thirty in 27 AD, and was not
quite thirty when He was baptized by John in that year. We
conclude then that He was born late in 4 BC., but obviously not
as late as December. This may be a good time to take note of some
history concerning that ancient holy day.
Christians did not so much "swipe" a pagan celebration
"Natalis Invicti Solis" (the birthday of the invincible sun) as
restore it. What modern scholars do not take into account is that
the Messianic or Christian religion is older than recorded
history, and because of that, prophecies and stories of the birth,
death, and resurrection of the Redeemer, born of a
Virgin, permeate ancient literature. The symbol of the Redeemer,
Savior, Messiah, Christ, was always the Sun, and still is (cf.
Mal. 4:2)!
Sun worship was a pagan corruption of the Messianic religion,
not vice versa _ just as creation epics like Enuma elish, the
Gilgamesh, and all the early Vedic epics were borrowed and
variously corrupted copies of the original "proto-Genesis" of the
Messianic religion that has come down to us in its least corrupted
form, in the Christian religion and Genesis. Virtually all of the
"pagan" myths can be traced to corrupted borrowings from the
earliest forms of our modern Christian (Messianic) religion.
When the Church tried to decide on the best day on which to
celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ they decided (in the 3rd
century) that they could make no better choice than to celebrate
it on the day that had always celebrated the birth of Messiah, the
day of the birth of the Sun, the symbol of Christ. Thus they
restored the original meaning to the celebration of the Winter
Solstice which used to coincide with 25 December (Julian), and
once again in history the Winter Solstice celebrated Christ: "the
Sun of righteousness" arising "with healing in his wings"--as
promised in Malachi 4:2
The actual nativity could not have been as late as 25
December. Shepherds would not be in open fields watching their
flocks in December! Flocks in that region were not in open fields
beyond the end of October. We therefore are led to concur that He
was born in September or October (of 4 BC.).
Kepler calculated that in May, Oct., and Dec. of 7 BC. there
were conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, and finally in
6 BC. Mars was added to Saturn, Jupiter in Pisces. A medieval
Jewish record states that traditionally the conjunction of these
planets in Pisces was to herald the birth of Messiah(l. And Matt. 2
tells us that the Magi saw the child and then told Herod of His
birth. Then Matt. 2:14 says that Herod slew all two-year-olds and
under "according to the time he had carefully learned of the wise
men."
.
__________________________________
1)Enc. Brit. 11th Edit. Vol. 3 p. 888 "It is a curious
coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel (Abrabanel), records
that the conjunction of these particular planets in this
particular constellation was to be a sign of the Messiah's coming.
It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend on
some such ancient tradition as may have been known to the
Chaldaean Magi.
.
Whatever slaughter Herod "might" have ordered, the report of
the birth of the Messiah was after, and at least two years
after, the time of the "signs in the sky". That places the birth
of Jesus two or more years after 6 BC. Knowing that the nativity
was in September or October, John practically pinpoints the date
when he says: "And the word was made flesh and tabernacled
among us" John 1:14. ("Tabernacled" is a literal translation of
the Greek.)
In 4 BC. the Feast of Tabernacles started on 4 October, (6
Oct. Julian) and in view of John's statement it is almost certain
that John put the birth of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Also we know that Bethlehem was crowded, as there was no room at
the Inn. For a census enrollment everyone had been told to go to
their place of birth, hence that could not have been the reason
for the crowd. On the contrary that would have emptied Jerusalem
and Bethlehem of all visitors and immigrants.
But Jerusalem and its surroundings, including Bethlehem were
crowded three times every year, for the three great Jewish
Festivals. And placing the birth of Jesus in September or
October, with an overcrowded Bethlehem on the night of the birth,
means that Jesus must have been born the night of 15 Tisri, 3-4
October, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. If the non-
native Jews had left the area, for the enrollment, they evidently
had returned for the Feast day. There is no other way to account
for the crowding.
That places the baptism, when He was almost thirty, (still in
His "1st year" of months) in the fall of 27 AD All of which
agrees with the date of the Crucifixion as 5 April 30 AD, once it
is realized that in the Gospels there are only two Passovers
during Christ's ministry. His ministry, following His baptism,
was therefore two and a half years _ from the fall of 27 AD to the
spring of 30 AD _ not three and a half years as has sometimes been
supposed, since that would have encompassed a third Passover.
Our Lord on 13 May 28 AD (Pentecost) "suddenly came to His
temple" as prophesied in Malachi 3:1; He then returned to Galilee
as prophesied by Isaiah 9:1-2 (Matt. 4:14-15) and proclaimed "the
time is fulfilled" (Daniel's 69th week had ended) and what has
been called the intensive period of His ministry began and He
preached the Gospel of salvation. His ministry ended 98 weeks
later when He came to Bethany, where the lambs selected for
sacrifice were kept, from 10 Nisan to 14 Nisan.
On Thursday, 14 Nisan, between the two evenings (i.e. between
noon and sundown) he was, as Daniel says "cut off", and was "in
the heart of the earth" where he suffered the agony in the garden
and the following day: 5 April (7 April Julian) 30 AD He was
crucified. Sunday April 7, after three days "in the heart of the
earth" He arose from the dead.
It now is important to note that the resurrection was "before
dawn" on Sunday. The three days and three nights "in the heart of
the earth" were Thursday and Thursday night, Friday and Friday
night, and Saturday and Saturday night. If the resurrection had
not been "before dawn" that would make a fourth day, Sunday, that
He was "in the heart of the earth".
In closing let me draw the readers attention to the complex
interlocking of so many details as to make the reconstruction of
this chronology virtually self-confirming. Move just one date and
the whole interlocking structure falls apart. That the structure
interlocks so neatly can hardly be a matter of convenient
juggling, and certainly cannot be due to mere coincidence. The
chronology therefore not only confirms critical dates in the life
of Jesus, it also confirms beyond any question, the historicity of
Jesus, and that He was indeed Messiah, the Prince (of Daniel), and
our Redeemer.
.
Suds
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
Subject: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D
From: sudsm@aol.com
Date: 22 Nov 1996 03:49:27 GMT
Cont'd #3
+ There are, however, some conflicts with modern reckoning that
perhaps should be clarified. After the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 AD the calendar rule for calculating 1 Nisan was lost or
fell into disuse, and observation of the lunar crescent came to be
relied upon exclusively. That allowed 1 Nisan to be delayed a day
_ or more in cloudy weather. The first indication of this
dependence on observation is in the Mishna, when the new moon
crescent appeared on a Sabbath and forty pairs of witnesses were
detained by Aqiba for having desecrated the Sabbath by having
traveled on the Sabbath to report it.
Gamaliel II criticized Aqiba for detaining the witnesses and
established the precedent allowing crescent witnesses thereafter
to travel on the Sabbath. In earlier times, when the new moon was
determined by calculation, there was, of course, no need for a
special travel exemption. Observation merely checked the
calculation and could be reported at any time.
Other changes included adoption of the short Metonic cycle
(of 19 years) in the middle of the 4th century AD, in place of the
84-year and the 1260-year cycles. But the 84-year cycle continued
to be used by Christians, and was used by the British and Celtic
Churches into the late 7th century. Other changes made over the
years have adjusted many other rules. For example, the civil
Jewish New Year's, on 1st Tisri, now may not fall on a Sunday,
Wednesday, or Friday--so that no two sabbaths can now occur in
succession. As a result, 15 Nisan would never again fall on a
Friday, if that rule were still strictly followed by modern Jewish
authorities.
We have now seen that the Crucifixion was on Friday 15 Nisan
= 7 April (Julian) = 5 April (Greg.) 30 AD The date, as derived,
agrees with historical records, astronomical calculations, and
Scripture, each of which is, in effect, an independent
verification. Another independent verification can be derived by
establishing the date of the nativity. (Dates given here are
generally Gregorian, unless otherwise noted.)
To determine the date of the nativity, the best starting
point is the death of Herod the Great. Now in describing the last
year of Herod's life Josephus tells us that one Matthias (the high
priest) was deposed by Herod and "the other Matthias" was burned.
He then adds "and that very night there was an eclipse of the
moon." (Ant. Bk. 17 Ch. 6 Sect. 4).
Since no lunar eclipse was visible at Jerusalem in early 3
BC. (prior to Passover), that lunar eclipse had to be the eclipse
of 11 Mar. (from about 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.) in 4 BC. Passover that
year was 30 days later, on 9-10 April in 4 BC. But because
Josephus mentions a Passover in the very next section, some
authorities have supposed that Herod died in 4 BC., during the 30
days between the eclipse and the Passover of 4 BC., and that our
Lord was therefore born before 4 BC.
Josephus, however, describes the events in the life of Herod
after the eclipse of the moon, and the description obviously
covers a period of many months. Furthermore Josephus describes the
events following the death of Herod in Ant. Bk. 18 Ch. 8 and 9,
after which Archelus led a 25-day funerary procession, and then
sent an army to prevent sedition against his succession being
spread during the following Passover. At that Passover "horsemen
slew three thousand men". That Passover cannot have been the one
less than 30 days after the lunar eclipse.
There is no way that the events in Herod's life following the
eclipse of the moon can be compressed into less than several
months, and there is no way that the activities of Archelus
following the death of Herod can be compressed into 30 days. At
the very least there could not have been less than 60 days between
the death of Herod and the Passover at which Archelus had the
three thousand men slaughtered. That Passover had to be in the
year 3 BC. following the lunar eclipse. In 3 BC. Passover was
31 March - 1 April. Whiston, in his 1737 translation of Josephus
says in a footnote "This Passover, when the sedition here
mentioned was moved against Archelus, was not one, but thirteen
months after the eclipse of the moon already mentioned".
Thus Herod did not die in early 4 BC., as some have
supposed, but died shortly before the Passover of 3 BC. This
agrees with the earliest and presumably, therefore, the most
reliable record of the date of Herod's death which is in the
Jewish chronicle Megillat Ta'anith, written c. 7 AD That record
puts the death of Herod at 1 Sebat. There was no 1 Sebat in our 4
BC. (due to the insertion of the extra month Ve-Adar in the
Jewish calendar). Therefore the 1 Sebat of Herod's death has to
be 18 Jan., in 3 BC. In that case there was an interval of 73
days between the death of Herod and the following Passover, which
is just sufficient time for the activities of Archelus reported by
Josephus. The events in Herod's life after the lunar eclipse
occupied thirteen months.
It has been observed that the Herodians had thought that
Herod was the Messiah because he procured the death of Antigonus
to make himself sole monarch in 37 BC. and, reckoning the "days"
of Daniel's weeks as 7 years each, the 69 weeks "to Messiah" ended
in 37 AD. Josephus tells us that
Herod reigned thirty-four years after the death of Antigonus in
the autumn of 37 BC.
In the customary enumeration of regnal years, Herod's first
year from the death of Antigonus was to the following 1 Nisan, and
his second year therefore began in the Spring of 36 BC. Then his
thirty fourth year ended at 1 Nisan of 3 BC., which again verifies
that his death was in early 3 BC., (presumably 18 January which
was 1 Sebat) which was his thirty fourth regnal year from the
death of Antigonus, and that agrees with Josephus.
Since Luke would not have followed the Roman reckoning, the
first year of Tiberius began for Luke on 14 Jan., 13 AD, and the
second year of Tiberius began with the new year (1 Nisan) in the
spring of that year (the customary Jewish enumeration of regnal
years was by calendar years). The fifteenth year of Tiberius,
when the ministry of John the Baptist began, thus extended from
the Spring of 27 AD to the Spring of 28 AD
The narrative of Matt. 3:3-12 allows several months of John's
ministry before he baptized Jesus, but not a year or more.
Therefore Jesus reached the age of thirty in 27 AD, and was not
quite thirty when He was baptized by John in that year. We
conclude then that He was born late in 4 BC., but obviously not
as late as December. This may be a good time to take note of some
history concerning that ancient holy day.
Christians did not so much "swipe" a pagan celebration
"Natalis Invicti Solis" (the birthday of the invincible sun) as
restore it. What modern scholars do not take into account is that
the Messianic or Christian religion is older than recorded
history, and because of that, prophecies and stories of the birth,
death, and resurrection of the Redeemer, born of a
Virgin, permeate ancient literature. The symbol of the Redeemer,
Savior, Messiah, Christ, was always the Sun, and still is (cf.
Mal. 4:2)!
Sun worship was a pagan corruption of the Messianic religion,
not vice versa _ just as creation epics like Enuma elish, the
Gilgamesh, and all the early Vedic epics were borrowed and
variously corrupted copies of the original "proto-Genesis" of the
Messianic religion that has come down to us in its least corrupted
form, in the Christian religion and Genesis. Virtually all of the
"pagan" myths can be traced to corrupted borrowings from the
earliest forms of our modern Christian (Messianic) religion.
When the Church tried to decide on the best day on which to
celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ they decided (in the 3rd
century) that they could make no better choice than to celebrate
it on the day that had always celebrated the birth of Messiah, the
day of the birth of the Sun, the symbol of Christ. Thus they
restored the original meaning to the celebration of the Winter
Solstice which used to coincide with 25 December (Julian), and
once again in history the Winter Solstice celebrated Christ: "the
Sun of righteousness" arising "with healing in his wings"--as
promised in Malachi 4:2
The actual nativity could not have been as late as 25
December. Shepherds would not be in open fields watching their
flocks in December! Flocks in that region were not in open fields
beyond the end of October. We therefore are led to concur that He
was born in September or October (of 4 BC.).
Kepler calculated that in May, Oct., and Dec. of 7 BC. there
were conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, and finally in
6 BC. Mars was added to Saturn, Jupiter in Pisces. A medieval
Jewish record states that traditionally the conjunction of these
planets in Pisces was to herald the birth of Messiah(l. And Matt. 2
tells us that the Magi saw the child and then told Herod of His
birth. Then Matt. 2:14 says that Herod slew all two-year-olds and
under "according to the time he had carefully learned of the wise
men."
.
__________________________________
1)Enc. Brit. 11th Edit. Vol. 3 p. 888 "It is a curious
coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel (Abrabanel), records
that the conjunction of these particular planets in this
particular constellation was to be a sign of the Messiah's coming.
It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend on
some such ancient tradition as may have been known to the
Chaldaean Magi.
.
Whatever slaughter Herod "might" have ordered, the report of
the birth of the Messiah was after, and at least two years
after, the time of the "signs in the sky". That places the birth
of Jesus two or more years after 6 BC. Knowing that the nativity
was in September or October, John practically pinpoints the date
when he says: "And the word was made flesh and tabernacled
among us" John 1:14. ("Tabernacled" is a literal translation of
the Greek.)
In 4 BC. the Feast of Tabernacles started on 4 October, (6
Oct. Julian) and in view of John's statement it is almost certain
that John put the birth of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Also we know that Bethlehem was crowded, as there was no room at
the Inn. For a census enrollment everyone had been told to go to
their place of birth, hence that could not have been the reason
for the crowd. On the contrary that would have emptied Jerusalem
and Bethlehem of all visitors and immigrants.
But Jerusalem and its surroundings, including Bethlehem were
crowded three times every year, for the three great Jewish
Festivals. And placing the birth of Jesus in September or
October, with an overcrowded Bethlehem on the night of the birth,
means that Jesus must have been born the night of 15 Tisri, 3-4
October, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. If the non-
native Jews had left the area, for the enrollment, they evidently
had returned for the Feast day. There is no other way to account
for the crowding.
That places the baptism, when He was almost thirty, (still in
His "1st year" of months) in the fall of 27 AD All of which
agrees with the date of the Crucifixion as 5 April 30 AD, once it
is realized that in the Gospels there are only two Passovers
during Christ's ministry. His ministry, following His baptism,
was therefore two and a half years _ from the fall of 27 AD to the
spring of 30 AD _ not three and a half years as has sometimes been
supposed, since that would have encompassed a third Passover.
Our Lord on 13 May 28 AD (Pentecost) "suddenly came to His
temple" as prophesied in Malachi 3:1; He then returned to Galilee
as prophesied by Isaiah 9:1-2 (Matt. 4:14-15) and proclaimed "the
time is fulfilled" (Daniel's 69th week had ended) and what has
been called the intensive period of His ministry began and He
preached the Gospel of salvation. His ministry ended 98 weeks
later when He came to Bethany, where the lambs selected for
sacrifice were kept, from 10 Nisan to 14 Nisan.
On Thursday, 14 Nisan, between the two evenings (i.e. between
noon and sundown) he was, as Daniel says "cut off", and was "in
the heart of the earth" where he suffered the agony in the garden
and the following day: 5 April (7 April Julian) 30 AD He was
crucified. Sunday April 7, after three days "in the heart of the
earth" He arose from the dead.
It now is important to note that the resurrection was "before
dawn" on Sunday. The three days and three nights "in the heart of
the earth" were Thursday and Thursday night, Friday and Friday
night, and Saturday and Saturday night. If the resurrection had
not been "before dawn" that would make a fourth day, Sunday, that
He was "in the heart of the earth".
In closing let me draw the readers attention to the complex
interlocking of so many details as to make the reconstruction of
this chronology virtually self-confirming. Move just one date and
the whole interlocking structure falls apart. That the structure
interlocks so neatly can hardly be a matter of convenient
juggling, and certainly cannot be due to mere coincidence. The
chronology therefore not only confirms critical dates in the life
of Jesus, it also confirms beyond any question, the historicity of
Jesus, and that He was indeed Messiah, the Prince (of Daniel), and
our Redeemer.
.
Suds
DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:55:22 -0500
In article <572d4j$6eo@gwdu19.gwdg.de>,
gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
> Your argument does not get any better by endlessly repeating it.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that the niches filled by
> large herbivores disappeared. They changed somewhat (and the
> picture is far less clear than you state it), and for 60 million
> years the large mammals adapted to these changes. You claim, that
> all of a sudden their niches disappeared completely, whereas
> if you move in exactly the same genera there is no problem
> whatsoever. You seem to have a very vivid imagination.
As tends to be the case with mass extinction, the question of survivors
is difficult. With such a "wave of destruction" postulated, why did any
large animals- e.g. elk, moose, bison, deer, caribou, pronghorn, sheep-
survive when horses, saiga, etc. went extinct? Why did the South American
camelids survive? Even if humans were responsible in part or whole for
some, most, or all of the extinctions, it's hard to pick out the pattern
to these survivals. The extinction of big, slow-moving animals like
sloths, glyptodonts, rhinos, mammoths, mastodons, etc. is a little easier
to picture. They're all really big and kind of slow (Well, then again,
rhinos can gallop like sons of b----s) so you have a common thread. Note
also that even if the mammoths habitat disappeared, you still have to
account for some way to take out the mastodons, which were browsers, not
grazers.
Maybe our rabid proto-Native Americans liked big slow prey they could
pick off pretty easily. But trying to figure out what makes a pronghorn
survivable but not a horse, or a llama but not a saiga (they can breed
really fast, too- two young in a year) is a little more difficult.
Prey naivete is a nice explanation for some things as well, but
remember, rheas are still running around South America and they're
probably about as fast as horses, and they're damn stupid compared to a
mammal, especially an elephant. Unless humans were moving in a kind of a
blitzkrieg, you'd expect mammoths to have had some time to learn that that
which goes on two legs is an enemy.
We might be dealing with a combination of factors or two different
extinctions here, as well. Hard to say. It might not be premature to say
that evidence is leaning in one direction, but it certainly would be to
say that all our questions are answered by one hypothesis.
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 09:06:03 GMT
Kathy McIntosh wrote:
>In article <3289792b.3697880@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> fmurray@pobox >writes:
>>what i find interesting here is that the ratio of the largest
>>refuter's figure to the smallest refuter's figure is larger than the
>>ratio of ed's figure to the largest refuter's figure...this becomes
>>true if we take socrates "few hundred yards" to mean a figure above
>>approx. 132 feet...as we use a larger value for socrate's "few hundred
>>yards" (his phrase justifies using a larger value), the ratio between
>>the largest of the refuter's figure and the smallest of the refuter's
>>figures becomes a multiple of the ratio between ed's figure and the
>>largest of the refuter's figures....
>>
>>perhaps something might be wrong with the refuter's figures??...
>>
>>frank
>My God! I didn't know you needed a higher degree in convoluted logic to
>read this newsgroup!
>Couldn't you have put the above in plain English?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kathy, you're perfectly right. But don't be too hard on Professor
Murray. After all, he has had a lot on his mind, what with the new
baby.
I'll do my best to simply it for you.
What Professor Murray was trying to say is that
the ratio of the largest refuter's figure (in the vast area of where
all of the bits and pieces that make up approximately 37.85 percent of
Lucy were found, even though some certainly weren't part of
him/her/it, since they weren't the right size or didn't quite match
the aging fossilization coloration of many of the larger bits and
pieces thought to be part of the actual skeleton (which, incidentally,
had been on display for quite time in the American Museum of Natural
History) to the smallest refuter's figure actually reveals that the
larger of the ratio of the figure to which I had alluded (when making
the statement, challenging the size of the geographical area in which
various bones that constitute the Lucy skeleton was found --
supposedly as wide as a square mile -- only to be confronted with
criticism in certain circles by those who insisted that incorrect
figures and information had been used in my calculations, and that
they, not I, was correct in the implying that the ratio information
supposed pertinent to the case, had been gathered out of context),
therefore negating the news group item originally posted that the
largest refuter's figure does indeed fail to match the ratio of the
figure first presented by the original refuter.
The plain and simple fact is that, if we want factual information
about the ratio of the discovery of all of the bits and pieces that
constitute approximately 37.85 percent, more or less, of Lucy,
because of their importance, we can take socrates' statement, based on
what he has read about this discovery in several books and periodicals
over the past few years, of a "few hundred yards" to mean a figure
above approximately 132 feet, or, if we wish, to use a larger value
for socrate's "few hundred yards" (to justify his phrase in which he
-- correctly (possibly incorrectly), uses a larger value, hence
reducing the ratio of the orginal refuter's figure in a comparison
with the smaller ratio figure, or by simply taking 67 percent
(actually 66.7334621 percent) of both numbers and dividing by 4.652 in
which the difference in ratio would preclude an answer that would be
more in line with the square footage of the area in which Lucy was
found.
Hence, the ratio figure presented by the presenter of the largest
ratio figure, when compared with the figure given for the largest
ratio figure, emphaticlly proves the point that they either are using
incorrect data, improper figures or had their cerebellum whacked out
because of lack of oxygen at 35,000 feet on the flight back from
Africa.
As you can see, Kathy, it's really very simple. You do not have to be
a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Cordially,
Ed Conrad
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 11:32:01 GMT
Kathy McIntosh wrote:
>In article <3289792b.3697880@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> fmurray@pobox >writes:
>>what i find interesting here is that the ratio of the largest
>>refuter's figure to the smallest refuter's figure is larger than the
>>ratio of ed's figure to the largest refuter's figure...this becomes
>>true if we take socrates "few hundred yards" to mean a figure above
>>approx. 132 feet...as we use a larger value for socrate's "few hundred
>>yards" (his phrase justifies using a larger value), the ratio between
>>the largest of the refuter's figure and the smallest of the refuter's
>>figures becomes a multiple of the ratio between ed's figure and the
>>largest of the refuter's figures....
>>
>>perhaps something might be wrong with the refuter's figures??...
>>
>>frank
>My God! I didn't know you needed a higher degree in convoluted logic to
>read this newsgroup!
>Couldn't you have put the above in plain English?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kathy, you're perfectly right. But don't be too hard on Professor
Murray. After all, he has had a lot on his mind, what with the new
baby.
I'll do my best to simply it for you.
What Professor Murray was trying to say is that
the ratio of the largest refuter's figure (in the vast area of where
all of the bits and pieces that make up approximately 37.85 percent of
Lucy were found, even though some certainly weren't part of
him/her/it, since they weren't the right size or didn't quite match
the aging fossilization coloration of many of the larger bits and
pieces thought to be part of the actual skeleton (which, incidentally,
had been on display for quite time in the American Museum of Natural
History) to the smallest refuter's figure which, in reality, actually
reveals that the larger of the ratio of the figure to which I had
alluded (when making the statement, challenging the size of the
geographical area in which various bones that constitute the Lucy
skeleton was found -- supposedly as wide as a square mile -- only to
be confronted with criticism in certain circles by those who insisted
that incorrect figures and information had been used in my
calculations, and that they, not I, was correct in the implying that
the ratio information supposed pertinent to the case, had been
gathered out of context), therefore negating the news group item
originally posted that the largest refuter's figure does indeed fail
to match the ratio of the figure first presented by the original
refuter.
The plain and simple fact is that, if we want factual information
about the ratio of the discovery of all of the bits and pieces that
constitute approximately 37.85 percent, more or less, of Lucy,
because of their importance, we can take Socrates' statement, based on
what he has read about this discovery in several books and periodicals
over the past few years, of a "few hundred yards" to mean a figure
above approximately 132 feet, or, if we wish, to use a larger value
for Socrate's "few hundred yards" (to justify his phrase in which he
-correctly (but possibly incorrectly), uses a larger value, hence
reducing the ratio of the orginal refuter's figure in a comparison
with the smaller ratio figure, or by simply taking 67 percent
(actually 66.7334621 percent) of both numbers and dividing by 4.652 in
which the difference in ratio would preclude an answer that would be
more in line with the square footage of the area in which Lucy was
found.
Hence, the ratio figure presented by the presenter of the largest
ratio figure, when compared with the figure given for the largest
ratio figure, emphaticlly proves the point that they either are using
incorrect data, improper figures or had their cerebellum whacked out
because of lack of oxygen at 35,000 feet on the flight back from
Africa.
As you can see, Kathy, it's really very simple. You do not have to be
a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Cordially,
Ed Conrad
Subject: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
From: wvk
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:45:15 +0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua1.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!not-for-mail
From: wvk
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:29:13 +0000
Organization: Phoenix Datanet, Inc.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial108.phoenix.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4171
Updated Info on this topic can be found at:
http://interact.uoregon.edu?medialit/fc/wfaemusing/mayan and
http://www.m-m.org/jz/spinxw.html
Much of the same material is repeated however each file has exclusive portions.
-------------
Now. In Feb.96 an article appeared in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
"Acoustic resonances of selected ancient structures"
It seems that ritual sites in England and Ireland dated from 3500BC to 400BC resonate
(enhanced) the Male voice and the rock art depicted he nodes and anti-nodes of the sound
waves.
While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
Does this indicate that the Druids came first (before the Chinese)?
FYI File
Compare a plan view of the Red House at Chichen Itza to the Temple of Luxor Egypt
per page 165 of the same Tompkins book.
BTW, experts will be studying the acoustics at Chichen Itza next year, mail me for
details
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua2.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-12.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.mathworks.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!ramtops.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Re: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:22:03 GMT
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <848528538.20359.0@ramtops.demon.co.uk>
References: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtops.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtops.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4175
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:29:13 +0000, wvk wrote:
>
>While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
>had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
>wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
>Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
>
>Does this indicate that the Druids came first (before the Chinese)?
Just how far back do you think the Druids date? Stone Henge was a distant
memory at the time of the first Druids, afaik. Newgrange is even older and
further away fromthe Druids.
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua 3.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!not-for-mail
From: wvk
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Re: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:19:51 +0000
Organization: Phoenix Datanet, Inc.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <32941EB7.15FB@phoenix.net>
References: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net> <848528538.20359.0@ramtops.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial166.phoenix.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4179
Douglas Weller wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:29:13 +0000, wvk wrote:
>
> >
> >While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
> >had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
> >wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
> >Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
> >
> >Does this indicate that the Druids came first (before the Chinese)?
>
> Just how far back do you think the Druids date? Stone Henge was a distant
> memory at the time of the first Druids, afaik. Newgrange is even older and
> further away fromthe Druids.The last sentence of my post (and last sentence only!) was a joke, shang script and all.
Wayne Van Kirk
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua4.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!surfnet.nl!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!ubaclu.unibas.ch!burglin
From: burglin@ubaclu.unibas.ch
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Re: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Message-ID: <1996Nov21.124127.47133@yogi.urz.unibas.ch>
Date: 21 Nov 96 12:41:27 MET
References: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net> <848528538.20359.0@ramtops.demon.co.uk>
Organization: University of Basel, Switzerland
Lines: 17
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4178
>>
>>While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
>>had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
>>wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
>>Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
>>
Even though this has been mentioned many times here,
the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun in
Teotihuacan are of natural origin. they have been
enlarged, but they are primarily of natural origin,
there is no relation to Newgrange.
Thomas Burglin
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua5.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!not-for-mail
From: wvk
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Re: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:46:16 +0000
Organization: Phoenix Datanet, Inc.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <32944108.10C3@phoenix.net>
References: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net> <848528538.20359.0@ramtops.demon.co.uk> <1996Nov21.124127.47133@yogi.urz.unibas.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial221.phoenix.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4180
burglin@ubaclu.unibas.ch wrote:
>
> >>
> >>While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
> >>had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
> >>wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
> >>Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
> >>
>
> Even though this has been mentioned many times here,
> the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun in
> Teotihuacan are of natural origin. they have been
> enlarged, but they are primarily of natural origin,
> there is no relation to Newgrange.
>
> Thomas Burglin
After locating an archaeologist who had recently visited the cave I asked if the
"natural" cave system had been modified and did it enhance the male voice especially
when speaking from the cloverleaf end.
The answer was:
"the caves under the pyramid of the sun have been extensively modified. SNIP
The caves have an acoustical signature as do many building in Mesoamerica. The Mayans
call this harmonic principle "the singing stones". there are several points of
amplification in addition to THE ONE YOU MENTIONED".
I don't agree that because the cave under the Pyramid of the Sun started off as a
natural cave it is then automatically disqualified as having any relation to Newgrange.
If I wanted to build a house with a view I would build it upon a hill rather than build
a hill then place the house on it
After all would it not be easier to build a ceremonial structure in a location where
most of the work was already complete?
Wayne Van Kirk
--------------18ADCA43A37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mrua6.htm"
Path: uhura.phoenix.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!not-for-mail
From: wvk
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Subject: Re: Mayan Ruins & Unexplained Acoustics
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:51:48 +0000
Organization: Phoenix Datanet, Inc.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <32944254.4672@phoenix.net>
References: <3292CF69.1C1@phoenix.net> <848528538.20359.0@ramtops.demon.co.uk> <1996Nov21.124127.47133@yogi.urz.unibas.ch> <32944108.10C3@phoenix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial221.phoenix.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
Xref: uhura.phoenix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4181
wvk wrote:
>
> burglin@ubaclu.unibas.ch wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>While brousing through Peter Tompkins "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" page 336 & 337
> > >>had a plan and elevation of the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun of Teotihuacan. Well
> > >>wouldn't you know it but it is almost identical (in plan view) to the ritual sight at
> > >>Newgrange in Ireland c.3500BC and I am told that it too resonates with the male voice.
> > >>
> >
> > Even though this has been mentioned many times here,
> > the caves under the Pyramid of the Sun in
> > Teotihuacan are of natural origin. they have been
> > enlarged, but they are primarily of natural origin,
> > there is no relation to Newgrange.
> >
> > Thomas Burglin
>
> After locating an archaeologist who had recently visited the cave I asked if the
> "natural" cave system had been modified and did it enhance the male voice especially
> when speaking from the cloverleaf end.
> The answer was:
> "the caves under the pyramid of the sun have been extensively modified. SNIP
>
> The caves have an acoustical signature as do many building in Mesoamerica. The Mayans
> call this harmonic principle "the singing stones". there are several points of
> amplification in addition to THE ONE YOU MENTIONED".
>
> I don't agree that because the cave under the Pyramid of the Sun started off as a
> natural cave it is then automatically disqualified as having any relation to Newgrange.
> If I wanted to build a house with a view I would build it upon a hill rather than build
> a hill then place the house on it
>
> After all would it not be easier to build a ceremonial structure in a location where
> most of the work was already complete?
>
> Wayne Van KirkWhen comparing the two structures you might say that they look like
ducks and squack (resonate) like ducks but do they walk in the same duck
family?
WVK
--------------18ADCA43A37--
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:39:23 -0600
Holoholona wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Holoholona wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > > In article <328E0CEE.36FD@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
> > > > > writes
> > > > > >I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to learn, > > > >but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew
Bible is
> > written in > > > >simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted
> > language of, say, > > > >the King James version.
>
> > > In your rush to condescend and insult Alan, it is you who have failed to comprehend > _his_ meaning
> >
> > Are you kidding? His meaning usually is to flame someone.
> >
> > . What you call fancy, stilted language in the King James version of
> > the > Bible was neither fancy nor stilted at the time, but rather a
> > readable translation > written in a way that any common man could
> > understand.
> >
> > So what? You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said,
> > which is that the English is NOT a literal translation. What is the
> > matter with you people?
>
> Nothing that winning the lottery wouldn't cure. ; )
>
> But seriously, I _know_ the KJV isn't a literal translation. We all do. But a literal
> translation would be unreadable. Besides, that's not really the gist of what you said:
>
> > > > > In article <328E0CEE.36FD@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
> > > > > writes
> > > > >I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to learn,
> > > > >but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is written in
> > > > >simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted language of, say,
> > > > >the King James version.
>
> The gist of what you said is that the KJV is not simple prose, but rather, fancy, > stilted language. I'm saying that it _is_ simple
prose, and not fancy at all.
Verily? Wouldest thou then use this tongue of our forefathers (albeit
not mine) upon the doorposts of they house or at thy gate? In that
dwelling-place where thou sojourneth, which is called ----? In the shop
where thou buyest thy victuals? Nay, I say unto you, for then thou
wouldest be looked upon with scorn and lament unto thyself "Alas would
that I had spoken with the voice of the Turtle (and not be heard in the
land)!"
>
> >
> > You further compound your > misunderstanding by comparing the KJV to > > Shakespeare, indeed, _Hamlet_, when in fact the
> > > KJV and Shakespeare are poles apart in their place in English literature. Shakespeare > did indeed use fancy and stilted language,
> > even invented vocabulary to suit his purpose > (_Hamlet_, for instance).
Because I wrote the name "Yorick"?? If I had wanted to compare the
language of the Bible with that of Shakespeare, I daresay I could do a
better job of it than that!
> >
> > Oh, really? You mean the Elizabethans didn't really talk that way?
> > Then how do you know the Jacobeans did?
>
> As Daniel suggested, there is a difference between writing and speaking styles. > Definitely a difference between the styles of
Shakespeare and the KJV translators.
All right, I believe you. Now would you kindly give us all a couple of
sentences demonstrating how a Jacobean Englishman spoke?
>
> {snip}
>
> > > Newer English translations of
> > > the Bible, which use modern prose, read easily.
Surely. The Hebrew Bible remains as it is and reads easily still.
> >
> > Again, so what? What does it have to do with my original point about > > the difference between Jacobean English and Hebrew?
Well, I admit I didn't make my point too well--obviously. There cannot
be a literal translation.
>
> Newer English translations are simple prose to modern readers, just as the KJV was > simple prose to the readers of 1600s. Your point was that
the Hebrew version was simple > prose and the English version was not.
No. That was not my point. "Simple" is not the word I should have
used. Would "economical" do? I don't know. The Semitic languages are
just not like English, modern or old-style. Hebrew, for one, would get
something said in fewer words because of its nature.
Ani--I am
betecha--your house
However, that doesn't mean the English isn't a faithful translation.
Not at all. The discussion was about ancient languages and the relative
size of their vocabularies. It had nothing to do with the language of
the KJV, which some may find simple and others not. Actually, there was
no point in my making any "point" because the person I was talking to is
an expert in ancient language, which I didn't realize at the time.
(snip)
