Solstice wrote:
2) How did Dionysius Exiguus... completing his work in what we now call AD 525... use this to compute the start of the Christian era, which our de-facto world calendar system is based upon?
To answer that I'll simply dump the link of the book "The Easter computus and the origins of the Christian Era" by Alden Mosshammer:
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/524.pdf
This is over 400 pages plus bibliographies plus an index.
The concluding paragraph is as follows:
- Antoine Pagi (1689: iv, xxxviii) had the right solution to the ‘Dionysian problem’ after all. Dionysius Exiguus did not calculate or otherwise invent a new Christian era. He simply transmitted to the west a well-established tradition of the Alexandrian church. Pagi said that Dionysius had adopted both the era of the Incarnation and the Paschal calculations of Alexandria. It is rather the case that Dionysius adopted his era of the Incarnation from the Alexandrians with their 19-year Paschal cycle. It was the Christian era of Julius Africanus, adopted by Anatolius of Laodicea, and transmitted along with the 19-year cycle to Athanasius, Andreas, Theophilus, Panodorus, and the Armenian church, as well as to Dionysius Exiguus.
This Anatolius is a very interesting character. A mathematician and astronomer. Perhaps having manuscripts of Ptolemy in his possession. Perhaps also an associated of Diophantus of Alexandria, one considered to be the father of algebra.
The Forger-In-Chief of "Church History", Eusebius, asserts that this Anatolius was a Christian Bishop. There are problems with this assertion.
But back to the book...
- p.139
iii. The Hypothesis of Daniel McCarthy
In 2003, Daniel McCarthy and Aidan Breen published a new critical text of the
Liber Anatolii de ratione Paschali, with English translation and extensive
commentary and analysis. The commentary and analysis represent the culmination
of more than Wfteen years’ work by Daniel McCarthy on the origins of an 84-year
Irish Easter table rediscovered in 1985 by Da ´ibhı ´ O ´ Cro ´inı ´n.12
Aidan Breen is responsible for the critical text of the Liber Anatolii.
McCarthy argues that the 84-year cycle used in Ireland began in the year ad 438,
or some interval of 84 years before or after that date, and that Sulpicius Severus
(c.360–425) was its author. Severus used as a basis for his work the peculiar lunar
table found in the de ratione Paschali. That lunar table is in turn fully congruent
with the principles set forth in the prefatory text. Therefore the de ratione Paschali
as a whole is a ‘cogent, sustained, and well-structured document’ that must in its
original form have been composed, or translated, no later than the early fifth century.13
McCarthy further argues that the authorities cited in the text and the references to
the Quartodecimans as preserving a genuine apostolic tradition suggest a third-century
Asian provenance. Both the tract and its included lunar and Paschal tables are in fact,
he concludes, the genuine work of Anatolius of Laodicea, translated from Greek into
Latin either by Rufinus of Aquileia or someone in his circle. 14 Rufnus translated the
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into Latin and added a continuation to the year 395.
McCarthy believes that the Latin version is not only independent from Eusebius, but is
also more faithful to the text of Anatolius in the passage to which they both attest.
St Jerome (de viris illustribus 61, 87) states twice that Eusebius himself composed a
19-year cycle.
McCarthy argues that Eusebius deliberately obscured and in one crucial phrase purposely
distorted the text of Anatolius in order to minimize the extent to which his own cycle
diVered from that of the esteemed bishop of Laodicea.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=z7 ... cs&f=false
Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism
edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson
- p.78
"Among Christian thinkers, the one-time head of the Aristotlean school at Alexandria and later bishop of Syrian Laodicea, Anatolius, had, according to Eusebius, comnposed "Arithmetical Introductions", which evinced his great learning in divine things. [83]
If this Anatolius is identical with the teacher of Iamblichus mentioned by Eunapius, and the dedicatee of Porphyry's "Homeric Questions", then he was certainly a well-connected and influential figurte in late antique intellectual circles. [84]
[83] HE 7.32.20;
on his role in the school of Aristotle, see HE 7.32.6
on his ordination at Caesarea, then Laodocea, see HE 7.32.21
[84] See Eunap VS 5.1.2; Porph Quaest.homer. 1.11 (Sodano)
R.Goulet is skeptical of identifying this Anatolius with Eusebius' Anatolius.
See Anatolius in "Dictionnaire des philophes antiques (Paris:1989), vol 1, pp 179-183
We see that there are people who are sceptical of identifying the (Platonic) mathematician Anatolius with Eusebius's bishop.
One of the bases for scepticism is sourced from Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists (1921) pp.343-565.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eunap ... IAMBLICHUS
The author states that Iamblichus leaves Anatolius and attached himself to Porphyry.
- Which of the following two options is the more reasonable?
1) Iamblichus (a Platonist) leaves Anatolius (a Platonist) to attach himself to Porphyry (a Platonist)
2) Iamblichus (a Platonist) leaves Anatolius (a Christian/Platonist) to attach himself to Porphyry (a Platonist)
Does anyone have access to R.Goulet "Dictionnaire des philophes antiques (Paris:1989), vol 1, pp 179-183?
What reasons does Goulet provide for his scepticism in identifying Eusebius's Bishop with the Plationist mathematician?
According to the classical historians Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius were 3rd century Platonists.
According to the biblical historians Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius were 3rd century Christians.
Ammonius and Origen already have disambiguation pages on WIKI.
Anatolius might have one soon.
Can anyone else see a problem with this situation?
LC
This is hopefully a better attempt than a previous thread I had started to discuss the Biblical origins of our calendar system (lets not talk about the temple siege being in 70AD anymore)