Ah, I see. Thanks.Michael BG wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:20 pmYour earlier comment only requested that I consider adding Julius Caesar, which should have been there because I had already accepted the need to make Trajan the eleventh.Ben C. Smith wrote: I am very confused. I can see Julius Caesar added to this list, which I agree with. But the rest (about your post) I am not sure about.
ETA: Also, I do not think any of the three emperors who died in 69 should be removed. They are rarely if ever skipped in the lists. Clement of Alexandria skips a couple of them once, in book 1 of the Miscellanies, but he is using them to count years, not emperors, and two of them added up to less than a year in total time ruling. When he gives the list again, this time as what others reckon, he skips none of them. The other lists I know of (from the Sibylline Oracles, Suetonius, 4 Ezra, and other texts) never skip any.
If Barnabas had to make things fit in the ways you are suggesting, then the ten horns are of zero use in determining the epistle's date. I said in one of my posts that this may be the case. If there are no "rules" or guidelines, then he can remove Julius Caesar from consideration because the empire did not properly start until Augustus; Galba or Otto or Vitellius or any selection of the three because their reigns were so short; Nerva because he reigned for only a couple of years; Domitian because he succeeded from his brother instead of from his father; or Nero or Caligula just for spite. Any personal prejudice will do once the usual guidelines are taken away. And I am not even arguing against this contingency; it might be correct. But to suggest from what little Barnabas tells us about the 10 kings/emperors exact motives for his removing one or more slots from the list is arbitrary and almost certain to be wrong. We ought to admit that either (A) Barnabas followed the usual, predictable patterns or (B) we have no clue what he was thinking.When Henry VII became king he didn’t accept that Richard III had ever been king! Therefore it is possible to exclude all emperors between Nero and Vespasian. It has to be remembered that Barnabas does not have the freedom of 2 Esdras 11:1 assuming that the “twelve feathered wings” are emperors. 2 Esdras 12:14 states that these kings shall “reign … one after another”. I believe this is not true for Julius Caesar and Augustus, and some were joint rulers with their successors Tiberius with Augustus and mention has already been made of Titus with Vespasian. (It is likely that Sibylline Oracles book 5 is too late (161+) to be of assistance here). Suetonius (c 119) is relevant. Therefore if the author of Barnabas was not quoting Daniel he could have gone with 12 like Suetonius and possibly 2 Esdras (c 97), but he couldn’t he had to have “ten kingdoms” (Barn. 4:5) to agree with Daniels “ten horns” (Dan. 7:24 Barn 4:6).
The Sibylline Oracles are not necessarily too late to be of assistance, since they help establish the cultural pattern:
Sibylline Oracles 5.16-26:
The very first lord shall be, who shall sum
Twice ten with the first letter of his name;
In wars exceeding powerful shall he be;
And he shall have the initial sign of ten;
And in like manner after him to reign
Is one who has the alphabet's first letter;
Before him Thrace and Sicily shall crouch,
Then Memphis, Memphis cast headlong to earth
By reason of the cowardice of rulers
And of a woman unenslaved who falls
Upon the wave. ....
The very first lord shall be, who shall sum
Twice ten with the first letter of his name;
In wars exceeding powerful shall he be;
And he shall have the initial sign of ten;
And in like manner after him to reign
Is one who has the alphabet's first letter;
Before him Thrace and Sicily shall crouch,
Then Memphis, Memphis cast headlong to earth
By reason of the cowardice of rulers
And of a woman unenslaved who falls
Upon the wave. ....
The first lord is Julius Caesar. Caesar begins with a kappa in Greek, which means 20, and Julius begins with an iota, which means 10. The second lord is Augustus, whose name begins with the first letter of the alphabet. The passage goes on to "predict" all of the emperors up through Marcus Aurelius.
Such patterns tend, I think, to be inherently conservative. Ronald Reagan is universally regarded as the fortieth president of the United States, despite the nonconsecutive terms of Grover Cleveland, the painfully short tenure of William Henry Harrison, and the general incompetence of Ulysses S. Grant. Henry VII may not have recognized Richard III, but every schoolchild in England sings his name in the mnemonic songs.
And, if you count the Sibyllines as too late, you have to count Clement of Alexandria's one quirky list as too late, too:
Miscellanies 1.21: .... [A] And nothing, in my opinion, after these details, need stand in the way of stating the periods of the Roman emperors, in order to the demonstration of the Savior's birth. Augustus, forty-three years; Tiberius, twenty-two years; Caius, four years; Claudius, fourteen years; Nero, fourteen years; Galba, one year; Vespasian, ten years; Titus, three years; Domitian, fifteen years; Nerva, one year; Trajan, nineteen years; Adrian, twenty-one years; Antoninus, twenty-one years; likewise again, Antoninus and Commodus, thirty-two. In all, from Augustus to Commodus, are two hundred and twenty-two years; and from Adam to the death of Commodus, five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days. [B] Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus: Caius Julius Caesar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Caesar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and he by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days.
The first seems to be his own idiosyncratic rendering, starting with Augustus and removing two of the emperors of 69 because their tenures did not combine to make even a year. But the second is exactly what we find so often elsewhere: Julius comes first and nobody gets skipped.
Are there any relevant lists, then, that differ from Suetonius' Twelve Caesars?
- Divus Iulius.
- Divus Augustus.
- Tiberius.
- Caligula.
- Divus Claudius.
- Nero.
- Galba.
- Otho.
- Vitellius.
- Divus Vespasianus.
- Divus Titus.
- Domitianus.
Antiquities 18.2.2 §32-33: 32 After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days, of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; 33 but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years, upon whose death Tiberius Nero, son of his wife Julia, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus.
Antiquities 18.6.10 §224: 244 So, when Tiberius had at this time appointed Gaius to be his successor, he outlived but a few days and then died, after holding the government twenty-two years five months and three days. Now Gaius was the fourth emperor.
Antiquities 18.6.10 §224: 244 So, when Tiberius had at this time appointed Gaius to be his successor, he outlived but a few days and then died, after holding the government twenty-two years five months and three days. Now Gaius was the fourth emperor.
4 Ezra makes the long-lived Augustus the second emperor:
4 Ezra 11.12-17: 12 And I looked, and behold, on the right side one wing arose, and it reigned over all the earth. 13 And while it was reigning it came to its end and disappeared, so that its place was not seen. Then the next wing arose and reigned, and it continued to reign for a long time. 14 And while it was reigning its end came also, so that it disappeared like the first. 15 And behold, a voice sounded, saying to it: 16 "Hear me, you who have ruled the earth all this time; I announce this to you before you disappear. 17 After you no one shall rule as long as you, nor even half as long."
I know you know these lists. So what do they mean to you? What is Barnabas doing? Is he breaking the rules? If so, then what hope is there of using the ten kings to pin down a date for the epistle?
I would make the same observations about Revelation 17.9-10, another controversial list. If John the Revelator broke the rules, so to speak, then we are in the dark as to who the seven kings are.