It is very intriguing that Avidius Cassius should be of the Herodian/Hasmonean blood line. If Herod and Marcus Agrippa could be identified as 'messiahs' merely because of their lineage and Vespasian because of his triumph and eventual Imperial title, was Avidius aware of his lineage, did he factor that into his sedition? Was it actively promulgated among Christians, Jews? It's peculiar. What about Judas the chronicler who - according to Eusebius - caused a stir saying that the Antichrist would appear in the 10th year of Severus, the very year there was a serious disturbance in Egypt. As we all know, Daniel's prophesy in chapter nine assumes that the messiah will be cut off before the 'end' of prophesy. The standard interpretation in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity is that Agrippa was the messiah and this accounts for many of the accounts (Yosippon, many texts in the Pilate pseudepigrapha) having Agrippa 'killed' at the beginning of the Jewish revolt.
Avidius Cassius is killed in 175. The Boukolia revolt under Isodore was three years years - perhaps three and a half years earlier. The prophesy most associated with the coming of the Antichrist is the 1296 days. While the numbers don't exactly square up, we don't know any of the details with respect to the Boukolia revolt in the first place, only rough approximations.
It is worth noting that Antoninus Pius ended his reign the 7th of March, 161 CE. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus commenced their reigns shortly thereafter. While the numbers again aren't exact, our information isn't exact about the revolt - but it is worth pointing out that the years of Marcus Aurelius would be 161 - 162 1st, 163 2nd, 164 3rd, 165 4th, 166 5th, 167 6th, 168 7th, 169 8th, 170 9th, 171 10th. The section in Eusebius seems out of order as it stands now and Schaff notes:
It immediately follows another section that appears out of order, the introduction of Clement:The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding chapter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if the account of Origen’s life was to be broken anywhere for such an insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude, therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed the position of this chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous chapter, note 1).
The footnote here by the editors:Clement 1803 having succeeded Pantænus, 1804 had charge at that time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while still a boy, 1805 was one of his pupils. In the first p. 254 book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a chronological table, 1806 bringing events down to the death of Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
One might expect that a section on Clement would be much earlier. How much earlier? Could the notice - and with it the reference to Judas, which appears in Clement - go back to Marcus Aurelius?This chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap. 3, where Origen’s appointment as head of the catechetical school is mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I. p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence inserted chaps. 6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen’s appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers the occurrence of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not give his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted in the same abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context. Upon the life of Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. The catechetical school was vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was then taken in charge by Origen, so that the “that time” referred to by Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back of the events related in the previous chapters. The cause of Clement’s leaving the school was probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 (“all were driven away by the threatening aspect of persecution,” according to chap. 3, §1); for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left long before that time. That it was not unworthy cowardice which led Clement to take his departure is clear enough from the words of Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he continued to enjoy throughout the Church, and from his own utterances on the subject of martyrdom scattered through his works.