Another Possibility for Apelles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

IMO the Egyptian context is clearly evident here also. The exact period of 90 days (i.e. three Egyptian months of 30 days) between the baptism (December 25) and crucifixion (the traditional Egyptian date is March 25) is striking. The use of a 360 day calendar is evidenced in Clement and the heretic Marcus among other Egyptian heresies. That Jesus's ministry was also exactly one year is attested by various Egyptian sources. The implication would seem to be that the Egyptian gospel DID NOT begin with a baptism of Jesus by John. The baptism of interest took place three months from the crucifixion three quarters of the way through Jesus's ministry.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

The difficulty comes when you attempt to reconcile the Jewish identification of Hanukkah with the 25th of Kislev with the 25th of December. Kislev is the 9th month. The crucifixion couldn't have occurred in the first Jewish month by this system. But when did Hanukkah become 'assigned' to a Hebrew month? Vanderkam makes an important observation from the text of 2 Maccabees.

https://books.google.com/books?id=L352z ... th&f=false

While he takes the evidence in a different direction one could make a powerful case that the original dating of Hanukkah was associated with Sukkot and then artificially 'assigned' to the 25th of Kislev. The parallels in the festivals are striking.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

Did the Jewish calendar get so out of whack that they were celebrating Sukkot in December? Remember the lunar calendar would have been 'off' the correct calculation of the year by a number of days each year. It wouldn't take long for those days to add up to months. The original date would likely have been calculated in Macedonian months (as with Josephus).
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

It is amazing to see how rarely the German article is ever cited by English speaking writers. Here you see how an inability to read other languages has hampered American and British research. If most of the smart people write in German how do we expect any researcher who can't read German keep up with things?
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

More on December 25th being the original 'Roman' baptism day of the Lord:
The Romans however had taken over the alternative Baptism-day—Tubi 11 = . December 25, and, by the same confusion as we see in Clement, observed it as the Birthday of the Lord. A conflict followed; and the matter was compromised1 by adopting the Roman Birth-date, and taking the Eastern date for an Epiphany date—the change being probably helped in the East by the fact that this was Tubi 11 in the now accepted Alexandrian or Augustan calendar. [Nicklin, T., Alexandrian evidence for the chronology of the Gospels. JPh N. 54, p. 232-252]
The author also notes:
The Apostolic Constitutions give the Nativity as Choiak 28 ... the Baptism as Tubi 11; the Passion Phamenoth 29.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

I think I came up with something far more interesting and more scientific. I discovered this authoritative demonstration of how the Egyptian calendar 'moved' and was eventually 'fixed' in the Augustan period:

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptole ... yptian.xls

It seems that even with the epigonal years (i.e. 5 intercalendar days added to the original 360 day, 12 x 30 calendar) the Egyptians still forgot to account for the 1/4 day for which we have the leap year. This was accomplished in the Augustan period. If we imagine a calendar which stuck with the original system and did not account for the leap year and we continue to chart the regression demonstrated in the table (i.e. the first of Tybi starting a Roman day later every 4 years) we can tentatively arrive at 11 Tybi = 25 December in 21 CE the year acknowledged as the crucifixion of Jesus by Eusebius from pagan (and other) sources.

To continue the regression from where it leaves off - 11 CE has Tybi begin on the 19th of December, in 12 CE Tybi begins on the 18th of December, in 16 CE Tybi begins on the 17th of December, in 20 CE Tybi begins on the 16th December down through to 23 CE.

16 December = 1 Tybi
17 December = 2 Tybi
18 December = 3 Tybi
19 December = 4 Tybi
20 December = 5 Tybi
21 December = 6 Tybi
22 December = 7 Tybi
23 December = 8 Tybi
24 December = 9 Tybi
25 December = 10 Tybi

and if we remember the early Christian rites they (a) undoubtedly developed from a Jewish understanding of days beginning at night and (b) baptism originally took place in an all night ritual with the individual being immersed with the rising of the sun. Look at Secret Mark for example:
And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
The term here for 'arising' is rooted in the concept of the sunrise. In other words, I think some sort of ambiguity - much like Christmas - arose where it was at once 'at night' and then crossed over to the next day.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

The ambiguity with regards to December 25th or January 6 arose from the differences in the Augustan calendar vs the Egyptian calendar unadjusted for the leap year. But IMO December 25 is more original.
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Clive »

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Another Possibility for Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

I am not sure that really advances the argument or idea in any way. Let's suppose that the issue of the December 25 vs January 6 dating is settled - i.e. it all comes down to the Augustan adjustment of the calendar. In other words, the 12 or 13 days come down to approximately 12 x 4 = 48 to 13 x 4 = 52 years between the crucifixion and the enactment of the Julian calendar. That is significant enough. Do we agree on that much?

This once again demonstrates that the Acts of Pilate tradition was working with real data and IMO underscores that there was something historical in the gospel. There was a real date for 'something' - although I am not sure what it was. The crucifixion at the heart of Christianity was a real event. It occurred in 21 CE. Did it necessarily involve a historical Jesus? No. Was the narrative 'pure myth'? No.
Post Reply