Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ulan wrote:...learn to read... you have absolutely no idea of calendars, astronomy or the whole topic,

wow, what a reaction!

My main point regarding Pliny was his apparent error about the degree of the signs, which you have not sought to address.

I'm sorry my reaction on your 25 December claim was too quick, but my broad point stands that we have no direct claim of a 25 December solstice, and in no way justifies your over the top personal attack.

You say the calend "seems to be included." Yes, if the 1855 footnote claiming the 25 December solstice estimate is accurate as indicating Pliny's intention. But a modern footnote alone is a flimsy reed, especially when a more natural reading would put the eighth day at 24 December.

If Pliny had said "the second day before the calends", your logic would put that at 31 December, whereas a normal reading would assume it meant 30 December.

We already had that discussion about the degree of signs. No need to repeat that one. Also, it's unimportant whether Pliny was right or not; it only matters what he believed to be true.

Your attempt at calculating a solstice from a new moon sounded a bit funnier than discussing where Pliny placed the borders between zodiac signs.

Robert Tulip wrote:You say the calend "seems to be included." Yes, if the 1855 footnote claiming the 25 December solstice estimate is accurate as indicating Pliny's intention. But a modern footnote alone is a flimsy reed, especially when a more natural reading would put the eighth day at 24 December.

If Pliny had said "the second day before the calends", your logic would put that at 31 December, whereas a normal reading would assume it meant 30 December.

Normal according to whom? Modern English readers without accurate knowledge of how to read an ancient Latin text?

Pliny the Elder in Natural History, 18.59, wrote "a. d. VIII kal. Ian."

If Pliny had written "a. d. II kal. Ian.", then the reader would logically understand by that what we call 31 December, but Pliny would not likely have written that, because Pliny had good Latin and that day was most properly written as "pr. kal. Ian," abbreviating "pridie kalendas Ianuarias".

Latin Grammar (2006), pp. 147-148, by Dirk G. J. Panhuis




"N. B. In English translations of papyri in which a Roman date occurs knowledge of the inclusive counting is presupposed: pro e kalandwn Maiwn = 5 (days) before the calends of May = April 27." [April is a month with 30 days in the Julian calendar.]
- P. J. Sijpesteijn, "Some Remarks on Roman Dates in Greek Papyri," p. 233 n. 22, in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979), pp. 229-240

"In the Roman system pridie follows immediately the 3rd day before a fixed day. Since pro mias + a fixed point is used for pridie + a fixed point, one should not expect to find pro duo + a fixed point. But there are two papyri which use exactly such a date: P. Cairo Isid. 87,8: pro duo kalandwn Maiwn ... and P. Dura 32, 3-4 [pro] dekaoktw kalandwn Maiwn (= April 30, ed.). These scribes used to the series pro dekaoktw kalandwn Maiwn --- pro triwn kalandwn Maiwn continued with pro duo kalandwn Maiwn which thus became another way of expressing pridie kalandwn Maiwn. P. Cairo Isid. 87, therefore should be dated to April 30, 308 A.D."
- P. J. Sijpesteijn, "Some Remarks on Roman Dates in Greek Papyri," p. 235, in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979), pp. 229-240

"All students of the classical languages are aware that, in referring to intervals of time, the Greeks and Romans often employed a method of reckoning which was inclusive and consequently different from our own. The Greeks, for example, refer to the period between two celebrations of the Olympic games (e.g. 776-772 B.C.) as a pentaethris, though we should call it a four-year interval. One instance of this kind of usage in Latin is the stereotyped formula employed in expressing a date: ante diem quitum Id. Mai. is 11 May, though we should say that there was an interval of four days only between 11 and 15 May. Another instance is the use of tertiana and quartana as applied to fevers which recur on alternate days and on every third day respectively."
- C. L. Howard, "Quisque with Ordinals," p. 1, in The Classical Quarterly 8 (1958), pp. 1-11

"... and the date of that was ante diem sextum kalendas Martias, or, as we call it, February 23." [February has 28 days in the Julian calendar, and as the footnote remarks here, "Caesar, with his usual desire to upset the traditional dating as little as possible, inserted the extra day of the fourth year in the same place, hence the name bissextile for a leap year, i.e., the year in which the date a. d. vi kal. Mart. comes twice. For, our modern almanac makers to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no such day as Feb. 29 in leap-year or out of it; every fourth year February has two 23rd's."]
- H. J. Rose, "The Pre-Caesarian Calendar: Facts and Reasonable Guesses," p. 71, in The Classical Journal 40 (1944), pp. 65-76

Peter Kirby wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:You might want to define "a solar religion."

A solar religion is a faith where perceived attributes of the sun are used as a basis for myths. For example, 'light and life to all he brings, risen with healing in his wings" from Charles Wesley's famous Methodist Christmas carol O Come All Ye Faithful, takes the actual attributes of the sun, bringing light and life to the earth, and uses them to describe Jesus Christ. Similarly the ancient mandorla places Christ in the position of the sun surrounded by symbolic references to the four seasons.

Romeo: - in Act 2, Scene 2

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou, her maid, art far more fair than she.

Similarly, the author of Romeo and Juliet is propounding a solar religion. Dispute, distinction, degrees, or debate is "ridiculous."

No comment?

Thanks for the date info, Peter. I tried to look Roman counting up, but I seem to have lost my Latin grammar books. Well, I haven't used Latin in a long time.

Robert Tulip wrote: Okay, so when ancient sources contradict your prejudices just feel free to pillory them as well.

No, Robert, I have explained in detail exactly what Philo and Josephus were saying and the context and relevance for your own use of their views for your purposes. I respect the evidence by first working at understanding and explaining it in context.

Robert Tulip wrote:Neil has not come up with any test to refute this theory.

No Robert, I gave you all the tests in our earlier round of debate over the account of the feeding of the 5000 and demonstrated why your so-called tests could be used to justify any theory at all.

Your methods of argument and rhetoric are those of a moralistic evangelist playing a zero-sum game with us. You do not demonstrate understanding of the fundamentals of scholarly inquiry. You even disagree with the fundamentals of what constitutes informal logical fallacies. This is why debating you is a waste of time.

Robert Tulip wrote:Hi Leucius, I came across a reference to astrotheology in your namesake's Acts of John. Christ (the sun) is surrounded by the twelve in a dancing ring (the months), presenting the Gospel as lunisolar allegory. The fixed stars sing praise as the twelve dance in the sky, part of the whole on high joining the dance. The wallflowers do not understand what comes to pass.

Peter Kirby has kindly agreed to a debate at The Podium, the section of the board reserved for polite and focused discussion under defined rules. As your comment above illustrates, defining the priorities of astrotheology is complex. I therefore propose to focus on Cosmology in The Lord's Prayer, as suggested by Neil Godfrey, as a way to examine the Hermetic Gnostic foundations of ancient Christology. I see that Stephan Huller has already had a rude comment banished to the outer darkness.

Good luck Robert I will be watching that one.

The Crow wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Peter Kirby has kindly agreed to a debate at The Podium, the section of the board reserved for polite and focused discussion under defined rules. As your comment above illustrates, defining the priorities of astrotheology is complex. I therefore propose to focus on Cosmology in The Lord's Prayer, as suggested by Neil Godfrey, as a way to examine the Hermetic Gnostic foundations of ancient Christology. I see that Stephan Huller has already had a rude comment banished to the outer darkness.

Good luck Robert I will be watching that one.

Neil Godfrey, at this time, did not agree to a debate.

I give everyone permission to start a debate at The Podium, if the relevant parties can agree to terms.

I wouldn't express that as "Peter Kirby has kindly agreed to a debate," but that might be quibbling.

Ulan wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:But that Pliny claim looks like pure garbage!

Calends signify the start of the new moon cycle and was always the first day of the month. Roman months had 30 or 31 days, with January and February originally left vague.The original December had 30 days. Eight days before January is 22 December, not 25 December, so this footnote has the sniff of a Christian interpolation to claim a reference to Christmas.

You should really learn to read. It's clearly stated that it's about the Julian calendar, which should even be obvious anyway from when Pliny lived. Which means December had 31 days. The way we define "eighth day" today, this would mean December 24 (which is by the way the date AcharyaS calculates from this in the book snippet Stephan Huller linked further above), but the calends seem to be included in the count.

Also, in the original Roman calendar, December had 29 days, not 30 as you claim, so two days were added, which I also already mentioned further above when it was about the shifted date of the Saturnalia.

The final reason why I think you have absolutely no idea of calendars, astronomy or the whole topic, which is remarkable for the self-appointed apostle of astrotheology on this site, is the simple fact that, with the original Roman calendar, you would in no way be able to make a general statement that the winter solstice is on the 8th day before the calends of January. No way at all. This was not possible with the original Roman calendar. That's a huge astronomy fail.

In the OP I cited the Solarium_Augusti. This instrument made it possible to observe mid-winter. Calendars were invented and reformed after observation. They are prediction systems but they were not accurate in antiquity, and as the centuries passed the day of mid-winter would have started diverging from the wisdom of the old generation.

In the above discussions a succinct definition of astrotheology has been formulated to be "theology founded on astronomy". When this is applied to the Ptolemaic model we have a spectrum of gods matching the moon and planets: Luna, Hermes, Venus, Sol [INVICTUS], Mars (always a Roman God), Jupiter/Zeus, Saturn/Kronos. This Gaeco-Roman theology had Egyptian roots, as did many strands of the Greek intellectual tradition.

The big question is how did the Jesus Story fit in to this already extant pagan environment of "theology founded on astronomy". The canonical authors appear relatively silent unless one goes looking for allegories, and there are a few there. OTOH the non canonical authors are more aware of the (gnostic) cosmology.

It's somehow funny that none of the "astrotheologists" can provide the evidence.

I started this OP with the intention of discussing the definitions and scope of astrotheology, with the intention of then applying these principals to what can be found in the early Christian literature. Above I have defended the claim that much of the Egypto-Graeco-Roman theology was based upon astronomy, and that it therefore follows to some degree that the whole nature of religion in antiquity was astrotheological. So the question remains, how does the Jesus Story and the LXX fit into this extant astrotheological environment.



LC

LC,

sorry that you got caught here in my somewhat sweeping statement. I'm certainly not an expert in this field, but when I am confronted with firm statements like "the idea that Christianity was not originally a solar religion is ridiculous", paired with ramblings about the importance of the gap between winter solstice and the later accepted date of Christmas, I expect such bold statements to be based on at least some background knowledge. I definitely don't mind speculation per se, but when someone vehemently and harshly defends his position, I expect a modicum of research into this position. In lack of such knowledge of the evidence, it would be better to take a more reluctant stance.

So after lots of speculation about the significance of the difference between winter solstice and December 25 as mirror of death and resurrection of Christ, the roundabout dismissal of the evidence that 1st century Rome had winter solstice smack-dab on December 25 as "garbage" was a bit much. This was rounded out by a lecture that "calends signify the start of the new moon cycle" and how you properly calculate the winter solstice from that... moon cycle.

I do not expect anyone who does not hold the position that Christianity was a solar religion to have profound knowledge of these aspects like calendars and solstices. However, if you make very bold statements in exactly this field, I do indeed expect that you have made your homework, especially when, even for a dabbler like me, it was not exactly difficult to find that piece of information about December 25.

So, sorry again for this long statement, but as you quoted my post, I felt it necessary to make clear why I reacted this way. Which brings me finally to the gist of your post.

Before the Julian calendar reform, the Roman calendar was a complete mess. People didn't know at the beginning of a year how long that year would be. The length of the year was determined by a politician and, because of this arrangement, dependent on the whims of that politician. The Roman calendar was useless for the determination of the start of the seasons or a winter solstice. It was only in 37 BC that, for the first time, the start of the seasons could be attached to the calendar by Varro. It took another 100 years to calculate the solstice, and at that time, the Solarium Augusti had become incorrect again.

I see the role of the Solarium Augusti more as a political statement than anything else. The calendar reform had made it possible, for the first time, to use such a calendar for proper planning. It brought stability into the year, and I guess the "Solarium" was Augustus' way of binding himself to this image of stability. Politicians again.

So, to finally get to your question, I think that societies that base their calendars on moon cycles, like the traditional Roman or Jewish calendars, put a relatively low value on solar imagery and everything that is connected with it. The imagery is sometimes used in descriptions, but never central. This is also true for the Greeks, where the sun god had a relatively low position, until Apollon usurped this position in Roman times. Which in the end concentrates the solar connection in pretty much all these cases on contacts with Egypt.

The LXX had been translated in Egypt, or so the story goes. However, that alone doesn't mean much yet for your thesis. The problem is the evidence. It may be suspicious how little evidence there has been preserved about early Christianity in Egypt, compared to what we know from Asia Minor for example, but I guess that's only suspicious if you lose history out of your sight. The sparse evidence is probably the reason why these discussions often don't rise much above sheer speculation.