Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle

To keep a 12-month lunar year in pace with the solar year, an intercalary 13th month would have to be added on seven occasions during the nineteen-year period (235 = 19 × 12 + 7). When Meton introduced the cycle around 432 BC, it was already known by Babylonian astronomers.

This is very close to the Hebrew calendar. Every 3 lunar years, about one lunar month is added to the third year, so after 3 years, the Jewish calendar keeps pace with the solar calendar. In the long run, the number of Jewish years is the same than the number of solar years, which goes against Carrier thinking Africanus' way of counting large number of years was permissible & not erroneous and practiced by Jews (certainly not by "Daniel" and Josephus!).

According to Africanus: "... there are reckoned 475 years, which make 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365 1/4days. For the latter exceeds the period of twelve months, according to the moon's course, by 11 1/4 days. Hence the Greeks and the Jews insert three intercalary months every 8 years. For 8 times 11 1/4 days makes up 3 months. Therefore 475 years make 59 periods of 8 years each, and 3 months besides. But since thus there are 3 intercalary months every 8 years, we get thus 15 years minus a few days; and these being added to the 475 years, make up in all the 70 weeks."

Cordially, Bernard

After checking my sources a bit, the problem with Africanus' statement is that what he describes as Jewish practice (intercalating a month every 8 years in the 3rd, 5th and 8th year) is actually a Greek invention, possibly by Cleostratus the Tenedian around 500 BCE, called the "octaetris." This was later found to be in error by Harpalus and Eudoxus, and finally Meto, who proposed the "enneadecaetris," what we today call the Metonic cycle. However, the Babylonians were already employing this scheme to intercalate their lunar calendar before he figured it out. Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology (1956), figure it was in use since about 747 BCE.

While it is not certain what kind of calendar the Hebrews used before the captivity (guesses range from lunar with some arbitrary intercalation scheme, like an extra month roughly every three years, to a 364 day schematic calendar to allow for 52 seven day weeks a year, possibly with some sort of 30 day intercalated month every 24 years.

FWIW, this "octaetris" cycle is assumed, although in a confused form, in 1 Enoch 74:13-16. It works if one assumes the lunar year is 354 days and the solar year is 365.25 days. The actual values are a bit different, which is why the Metonic cycle is actually more accurate, but using 365.25 & 354 as approximations, an eight year cycle actually makes sense, as it can also be synchronized to the sectarian 364 day calendar of the DSS. If you intercalate one 30 day month every 24 years, this is the same as intercalating nine 30 day months over three octaetris cycles.

365.25	364	diff	354	diff	term
8	10.00	3.000	90.00	3.000	octaetris
19	23.75	0.792	213.75	7.125	Metonic
24	30.00	1.000	270.00	9.000	Schematic 364 day

There are many ways to add variety to these tables (alternate, or arbitrarily pick, 29 & 39 day months so they average out to the mean synodic month of 29.5 days).

DCH

Bernard Muller wrote:According to Africanus: "... there are reckoned 475 years, which make 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 3651/4days. For the latter exceeds the period of twelve months, according to the moon's course, by 111/4 days. Hence the Greeks and the Jews insert three intercalary months every 8 years. For 8 times 111/4 days makes up 3 months. Therefore 475 years make 59 periods of 8 years each, and 3 months besides. But since thus there are 3 intercalary months every 8 years, we get thus 15 years minus a few days; and these being added to the 475 years, make up in all the 70 weeks."

to DCHindley,

If I understand well, it does not matter what calendar schemes the Jews might have used. Any of the three ancient calendar schemes would count the same number of years than a calendar based on solar years over a long run.

Because the three schemes have years which most of the time have less days than the solar years, the worst thing which will happen in these schemes is, at times, for days towards the end of a month, the solar calendar will have begun a new year while the other calendars did not get to it yet (still indicating the last days of the year before).

For Africanus, using 354 days lunar year, a correction would have to be done every 2 or 3 years in order to prevent that calendar, supposedly used by the Jews, to be more than 22 days out of synch with the solar years. Plants and animals follow the solar year and that could not be ignored by people depending on them.

Even Africanus admitted of these corrections (3 within 8 years) in order to keep pace with the solar year. So I still think it is very dishonest of him to use that scheme, which has the 490 years of 354 days and then convert back the resulting total number of days in solar years of 365.25 days, in order to get his 475 years.

I do not see why his calculation should not be declared as wrong and apologism of the worst kind.

What do you think DCHindley?

Cordially, Bernard

Here is my two cents on what Carrier had to say. I think his theory is plausible. He does use Africanus as an example of early Christians calculating back Daniel in ways to arrive at Jesus' time and is showing how he arrived at a time in the 30s ad. He certainly doesn't say that this calculation is correct-- just that Christians were finding ways to reinterpet Daniel to keep moving the prophecy forward to there time.

Look, I started this thread because I got a little freaked out by the fact that if you subtract 490 years from 458bc when Ezra was told to go back to Jerusalem--- you get around 33ad. That is just straight forward years. So if someone was pouring through scriptures in early first century and used this information in Ezra--- they would come up with 30s ad, just like Carrier said. Again, Africanus was an example.


Daniel appeared to be a pretty big deal to the Essenes and other sects in the first century. In Qumran, there have been calculations found in which they were trying to calculate Daniel and came up with early first century as when the messiah would appear. So, Daniel was beginning to loom large with some Jews.

I like carriers theory. It provides a plausible explanation as to how either a man who thought he was the messiah would choose this time frame that matches up with a possible interpretation of where the 70 weeks started or this really is miraculous prophecy and Jesus really was the messiah. I am not a practicing Christian so I tend to favor the first scenario. Carrier is the first to address the question "why the 30s ad" and for that, I am gratful. Otherwise, what explanation would there be that Jesus is killed right around the year that is 490 years from Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem

Unless I'm missing something, it seems clear that the Jeremiah prophecy about the end of the Exile and its aftermath was wrong. (Along with other wrong prophecies, but they're a separate topic. And by "wrong," I mean that the events predicted did not occur as described. I do not mean that prophecy is a genre of political discourse or poetry and that the "wrong" feature was Jeremiah's wrong politics or his bad poetry.) Carrier is correct to point out, as many have done, that Jesus' prophecy about his return and the End Times was wrong. So biblical prophecy as a whole is not inerrant. There is no basis, then, for someone to claim that the Daniel 9:25ff prophecy is miraculous. It would be like saying a stopped clock miraculously gives the correct time twice a day. Wouldn't it?

ficino wrote: So biblical prophecy as a whole is not inerrant. There is no basis, then, for someone to claim that the Daniel 9:25ff prophecy is miraculous. It would be like saying a stopped clock miraculously gives the correct time twice a day. Wouldn't it?

Sure, prophecy is not miraculous....
People predict stuff all the time - and sometimes may win the prediction lottery....

What is interesting in regard to Daniel ch.9 is the use of numerology as a template into which predictions re prophetic fulfillment are set. Goodness knows if people back then knew any further back dates at all. However, that did not stop the bible writers from using their 'sacred' template to accommodate either known historical data - or their own prophetic interpretations of known history - or hoped for history. Prophecy, if it was to have any worth at all, had to be shown to have been fulfilled. Either work back from some historical event and postulate an important happening at that earlier time period - or, as there is nothing new under the sun, use that same template to project their hopes into the future. I don't think anything is achieved by knocking the method - it is what it is. That said, when it can be observed that certain writers are using this method to record either history, or pseudo-history/storytelling - it should alert one to greater vigilance in evaluating the writing.

Below is a chart using some elements from Daniel Ch.9 in connection with the gospel Jesus story.

Artaxerxes 1	Daniel ch.9 and its 70 weeks of years	Pilate	Daniel ch.9 and its 70 weeks of years. 1 week of years 1x7 = 7 years
lst year 465 b.c.e.	69 weeks of years = 483 years	18/19 c.e.(see footnote)
7th year 457 b.c.e. Ezra brings gold and silver for Jerusalem Temple. Ezra ch.7.	69 weeks of years	26 c.e. Consensus dating for Pilate	26 c.e. = 1st year of a 7 year prophetic period.
			29/30 c.e. Middle of the year of years. 15th year of Tiberius. Anointed one cut off.
			33 c.e. Running the 7 years from 30 c.e. And a crucifixion in 33 c.e.
20th year 445 b.c.e. Nehemiah rebuilds wall of Jerusalem. Neh.ch.2.	69 weeks of years	37/38 c.e. Removal of Pilate. Death of John the Baptist. War between Aretas and Antipas.	37 c.e. Execution/beheading of John the Baptist.

Was Josephus interested in Daniel ch.9? Well now, he did place the death of Agrippa I around 44/45 c.e. That is 490 years from the 20th year of Artaxerex I in 445 b.c.e. Josephus making a number of prophetic illusions to Agrippa I. The rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. Agrippa's imprisonment having reflections of that of Joseph in Egypt. Genesis ch.40. (noted by Daniel Schwartz in Reading the First Century.)

Thus what can one say - Daniel ch.9 is a method - it is not itself justification, or validation, of what history or storytelling is put within it's template. Trying to be more specific in regard to what calender or months or regnal years etc is to loose the plot in regard to prophecy and Daniel ch.9. This is not science we are dealing with - it's a very loose method that strives for meaning in history, that looks for the 'sacred' among the ordinary....and to do that the number 7 is granted special significance.

I like Carrier's theory. It provides a plausible explanation as to how either a man who thought he was the messiah would choose this time frame that matches up with a possible interpretation of where the 70 weeks started or this really is miraculous prophecy and Jesus really was the messiah.

This man did not choose when he would be born. And because in the long run Jewish years total the same as solar years, the so-called prophecy of Carrier's theory would lead to around 45 AD, not 30 AD. And that so-called miraculous prophecy was about events happening around 168 BC, in the mind of the author of that part of 'Daniel'.

Carrier is the first to address the question "why the 30s ad" and for that, I am gratful.

No, Carrier is not. Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian apologist, is the one. Later, Christian fundamentalists used Africanus' calculation, before Carrier ever did.

Otherwise, what explanation would there be that Jesus is killed right around the year that is 490 years from Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem.

Ezra's Authorization to go back to Jerusalem has nothing to do about rebuilding Jerusalem "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'." (Da 9:25).
That cannot be used by anyone as the start of the timeline for the 490 years. From my webpage (http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html):
Artaxerxes I (458) (Ezra 7:11-28): This "letter" to Ezra only does not decree any reconstruction, but freedom for Israelites to go to Jerusalem, Jewish animal sacrifices, gifts for the temple & its people and special rights for Ezra. This temple had been already rebuilt and consecrated in 516 (Ezra 6:15 "The temple was completed ... in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius."). Also, in the book of Ezra, there is no mention of any rebuilding (or repairs) in Jerusalem while Ezra (a priest & teacher of the law only -- 7:21) was there. As a matter of fact, Isaiah 44:28, Ezra 2:1, 7:8,9,13, 8:31,32 imply Jerusalem is existing then as a town.

Cordially, Bernard

to MaryHelena,
There is nothing in the Jewish Scriptures about Artarxerxes I issuing a decree to rebuild Jerusalem in his 1st year as king.
I already addressed Ezra in my previous post.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to MaryHelena,
There is nothing in the Jewish Scriptures about Artarxerxes I issuing a decree to rebuild Jerusalem in his 1st year as king.
I already addressed Ezra in my previous post.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, I never said that Artarxerxes I issued "a decree to rebuild Jerusalem in his first year as king".

What I have done is apply elements of the time method of Daniel ch.9 to various dates relevant to the gospel Jesus story. That 483 years, working from the early date of Pilate in 18/19 c.e. go back to the lst year of Artaxerxes I, in 464 b.c.e. is a simple calculation - nothing more and nothing less than than. That this calculation leads to the follow up re the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes I, is par for the course. There is no exact number/date involved in all this application, usage, of Daniel ch.9. As I said in that other post.....don't look for validation of stuff within the method. The point is that Daniel. ch.9 is being used to record either history or pseudo-history/storytelling. For heavens sake, Bernard, how on earth could you prove without a shadow of doubt that the correct interpretation of Daniel ch.9 starts from when Ezra went to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes - can you even establish that Ezra was a historical figure?

All one can learn from Daniel ch.9 is that the Jews used the 70 weeks of years method for recording their historical reconstructions or interpretations. It tells us nothing more than that. What actually happened, when and where - that's the job of history not interpretations of Daniel ch.9.

Kris wrote:Ok, this is an offshoot of my attempting to understand Daniel better. The information I am looking for has to do with why the Jesus story developed in the 30's ad? Could it have been due to different sects looking through what they thought to be prophecies of the messiah and then trying to find timelines that could give them dates?

One example would be Daniel. Most people know that this addresses Antiochus' time. However, not all the prophecies came true, and the world didn't end-- the messiah didn't come (at least according to the Jews) and life went on. So, the writings had to be reinterpeted-- and now, different start dates calculated. If we go with Artaxerxes decree, we can "move the goalposts" as spin would say. Using either of his decrees, you end up in anywhere from the 20-40ad arena. Could this be how Jesus supposed death fits this secondary timeline?

Perhaps even Jesus was a follower of this messianic expectation-- and if he was a real man during this time, tried to get himself offed when he thought he would most likely meet the prophecy timeline? or if his story was interjected by later writers, could they have used Daniel to identify the 30's or there about as a good timeline for him to meet these suppposed prophecies?

I believe that this is what Richard Carrier thinks.

Or is it all coincidence? I don't like coincidences.

so you have rediscovered Albert Schweitzer. good going.