Historical Events Database - History

Zadig said:

Laura said:

Zadig: entry 2525: why didn't you enter each of the four eclipses in the correct year as events??? It doesn't help us to map stuff like that if you bunch four of them together that way.

Click to expand...

There are too many lunar eclipses in Astronomical Diaries, I’ve summarized when several eclipses are on the same tablet.

Click to expand...

Laura said:

Oh, the situation just gets uglier and uglier. After a few weeks of digging determinedly into Josephus, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, I'm thinking that Josephus is another Gregory of Tours. God, I hope I live long enough to lay out all these clues!

Click to expand...

Laura said:

Atwill thinks he has the solution and it's pretty elaborate, but he misses some big pieces of the puzzle. Unterbrink is just simply a Josephus worshiper with no discrimination at all. Heck, for that matter, most mainstream historians since the Renaissance haven't had much in the way of discrimination either. I can't believe that they read the texts with an open, critical mind, and do NOT see that a whole lot of it is questionable and big chunks are just simply ridiculous.

It's pretty certain that Josephus existed and that he wrote some things, but it's also pretty obvious that the parts of his history that are "original" to him are either 1) The Weekly World News of the Roman Empire or 2) somebody did some heavy redacting and creative inserting.

It is also pretty clear that whoever did it, either Josephus himself, or a redactor, relied on Tacitus. That is VERY problematical because Josephus is supposed to have composed his Antiquities around 93 or 94, while Tacitus composed his histories/annales in 112/113... So, you see, that creates a real problem.

Also, the section in Tacitus where it is said that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on Christians and thus began the persecutions, is an obvious interpolation and any historian who doesn't see that is deaf, dumb and blind. Dio Cassius followed Tacitus, among others, and his story about Nero and the burning of Rome and the aftermath is far more coherent and has not even a WHIFF of "Christians".

Click to expand...

"g A modern reader might be surprised at this definition of the vernal equinox, since modern astronomy, modern astrology and its popular bastard all agree in placing it at 0 Aries.
Let's start with a minor matter: Gwilt either has a poor text here or mistranslates. Teubner has partem octavam, which is in fact, strictly speaking, ambiguous (literally, "eighth part": either one-eighth, or a part eighth in number in some succession of parts); but a few lines after this, Gwilt renders a second identical partem octavam by "the eighth division of it", and from then on makes no further mistakes: and 8 degrees is in fact meant, or in modern terms 7° since we start numbering degrees at 0, but ancient astronomers at 1.
Still, an apparent oddity remains: that Vitruvius places the vernal equinox within the seventh degree of Aries when modern astronomers place it at 0° Aries. The essential explanation follows:
Vitruvius is orienting himself by the visible constellations of the zodiac, and in his time the point of the spring equinox, or vernal point, was in the 7th degree of the constellation Aries.

Gravitational effects involving the oblateness and tilt of the earth with respect to its solar orbit cause this vernal point to move very slowly backwards thru the signs, carrying with it equally of course the whole circle of sun-referenced points, of which the salient ones are the equinoctial and solstitial points. This precession of the equinoxes is a regular motion taking about 25,800 years to make a full circle: the rate of precession is thus 50.23 seconds of arc per year.

Modern astronomers orient themselves in terms of the vernal point, regarded as zero wherever it is. They have also firmly delimited each of the constellations: the vernal point is currently (1999) in the constellation Pisces, about 28 degrees east, along the ecliptic, of the modern boundary of Aries, and about 10 degrees west of the boundary of Aquarius. (The modern Pisces is a large constellation, and eats up 38° of ecliptic, more than some of the others.)

Thus, assuming a date of roughly 20 B.C. for the de Architectura (further difficulties, see my note elsewhere), the vernal point has now precessed by

(360° × 2020)/25800 = 28°11
Taking the middle of Vitruvius' "eighth degree", or 7°30, as his vernal point and assuming equal division of the zodiacal constellations along the ecliptic (of which there is one clear indication in this very Book, see next note), in his terms that point is now at 9°19 (which he'd call the tenth degree) of Pisces, give or take 30 minutes.

It may be noted in passing that when Vitruvius places the vernal point in a given degree of Aries, he is writing within a precisely defined framework of astronomical coördinates, constellation boundaries and star positions: over three hundred years old, in fact.

A couple of related comments:
a. If, as noted, there is nothing magical about the beginning of Aries, why is something called "0 Aries" (and even astronomers use , the symbol for a Ram, to denote the point) taken as a fixed point? I would answer: convenience; but it is pleasant to see, and to some extent true, that embedded in both astrology and scientific astronomy, a specific historical time will remain marked as long as those disciplines retain their present form: roughly A.D. 517, following my earlier assumptions. (For any NewAgers out there, the vernal point will pass out of the equal-sign Pisces in roughly the year 2667; the so‑called age of Aquarius is hardly with us yet.)
b. Astrologers, like everyone else, need to be very careful in reading the works of Antiquity. I mentioned that the ancients numbered degrees within a sign starting at 1, not at 0 like us (which the most cursory check of Ptolemy will instantly reveal: he often speaks of the 30th degree of a given house or of a given zodiacal constellation, and never of a 0th degree). So if you are using 3 Taurus as the degree of the Moon's exaltation, or 15 Virgo for Mercury's etc. — you are one degree off. Yes, the ancient texts are unanimous in referring to the third degree of Taurus, etc.: meaning the space of one degree after two have passed, or in modern astrological terms 2 Tau, 14 Vir. . . . For a somewhat more detailed view of the problem, see my note to the article Astrologia in Smith's Dictionary.

Click to expand...

Palinurus said:

Hey Laura,

Maybe you don't have to lay out all of these clues completely by yourself alone... ?

On the website of Charles N. Pope --about which I already posted a little something elsewhere-- the discussion about Atwill starts with an elaborate review of Caesar's Messiah which can be found here: The Flavian Dynasty on _http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=13514

It contains links to discussions about Flavius Josephus too, and there are many more about him as well. One just has to use their search function to find them all.

I've delved into it a bit to test the waters so to speak and to see whether anything of value comes to the fore (which I think there is), but the way in which the materials are presented makes it very difficult to get an overview of the whole lot -- let alone get a firm grip on the main lines of reasoning, as one is bound to be drowned by all the detailed meanderings and sidesteps one encounters while trying to follow through on all relevant posts about a particular subject which are scattered all over the place.

I mean, when you start with a subject somewhere you'd better open a new window straight away, which will then be filled with multiple tabs to follow the main argument. While doing so, you have to open new windows every time the subject branches off into relevant 'side shows' -- each filled again with multiple tabs to show even the minutest details. And so on, almost in perpetuity...

Click to expand...

...how about you collect the good stuff together, paste it into a document, and post it here as an attachment? That way I can print it and read in my special chair that doesn't hurt.

Click to expand...

Abstract
Living in Truth: Archaeology and the Patriarchs

The Bible describes great kings of Israel who are said to have ruled between the Nile and the Euphrates. However, the archaeology of traditional Israel does not support this claim. In Egypt there is the archaeology of pharaohs who boasted of an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. However, a detailed narrative record of their family history and culture has not been found. Could it be that the archaeology of Egypt and the cultural memory of the Bible are two facets of the same royal history, which should logically complement one another? In other words, did the pharaohs also reign as kings in Israel, but under Hebrew names? Is the Bible then the memory that Egyptian kings left in Israel? Did the kings of Israel in fact have a far greater sphere of influence than is acknowledged in Scripture? Was the identity of these kings in Egypt later disguised for political reasons or other purposes? These are obvious questions, yet they have not been asked much less answered . until now.

In Part I, it is shown that the Patriarchs listed in the Book of Genesis are one and the same as the great "God-Kings" of the ancient world. The first Patriarch Adam is identified as Atum the primeval god of Egypt. Biblical Adam was commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it."a The Hebrew word for subdue means to "conquer, oppress, subjugate," and implies that Adam and his immediate descendants were in fact authorized to rule as kings. Consistent with this, the "genealogy" of Adam given in Genesisb correlates precisely with the succession list of the gods of Egypt. After the Flood, the first renowned conqueror is named in Genesis as Nimrod (Namer). He corresponds to the Egyptian pharaoh Narmer, founder of the Egyptian Old Kingdom. In Narmer the rival lines of inheritance from both Ham and Shem were recombined. From that time forward the "world" of the Near East was lorded over by a single royal family who considered themselves to be equally Semitic and Hamitic.c The Bible traces the history of that dynasty which ruled literally for a thousand years over the dual regions of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The various books of the Old Testament are an anthology. They were written by different authors and are not fully consistent in either theology or philosophy. Furthermore, the books of the Old Testament collectively do not represent either a unified or sequential account of ancient history. In Part I, it is shown that the major Old Testament accounts, namely the Torah, the Books of Joshua and Judges, and the Kings/Chronicles narrative, actually overlap considerably in time and vary widely in their opinion of many of the same persons and events. For example, the Torah and the Biblical Kings/Chronicles narrative each provide their own version of the period corresponding to the Egyptian New Kingdom. They were written from entirely different viewpoints. For that reason they are infinitely more valuable to us now as an aid in reconstructing the history of that critical era.

Both the Torah and the Kings/Chronicles narrative make use of composite characters, however they are formed in very different ways. In the Kings/Chronicles narrative, David and Solomon are composites. Each combines the memory of two real-life kings who shared the same name and ruled one after the other.d These composite figures reflect the ancient mindset that the life and kingship of a father could go on through his male descendants. It was fundamental to the notion of "dynasty." The Torah embodies an even more sophisticated ancient mindset that "history repeated itself." Patriarchal history during the Egyptian New Kingdom period was considered to be a repetition of the Middle Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom was a repetition of the Old Kingdom, which in turn was a repetition of the ante-Diluvial world of the gods. Consistent with that belief, the major characters of the Torah are also composite in nature. However, in contrast to the Kings/Chronicles narrative, a king is not merged with his immediate predecessor, but persons of one era are viewed as "second comings" of ancestors who lived in a much earlier period. Primarily, Torah characters are royal family members of the Egyptian New Kingdom who are melded with great ancestors who lived and ruled during the Middle Kingdom.

The climax of the Torah is the Exodus of Moses. It is also the most pronounced cycle of the Torah. Four of the five books of the Torah are devoted to this event. Only one book, Genesis, describes all of previous Patriarchal history. There were two very distinct Moses figures in Patriarchal history, however only one Exodus account is included in the Torah. The story of Moses is therefore not a pure biography but a composite of those two men, who were separated by more than one hundred years in time. The Moses of the New Kingdom (Akhenaten) was depicted as a repetition of the archetypal Moses who lived in the Middle Kingdom (Hammurabi). Material belonging to both persons and events was integrated into a single narrative.

The Books of Joshua and Judges are not part of the Torah and were not written in the style of the Torah. More specifically, the history included in Joshua and Judges is not formulated as a repetition, but pertains entirely to events that followed the first Exodus of the Middle Kingdom. The Moses referred to in that account is the Middle Kingdom Moses. The Book of Joshua has nothing to do with the second Moses of the New Kingdom. However, for lack of a more appropriate place, the Books of Joshua and Judges come after the Torah in the Bible's table of contents. This has only served to further ingrain the misconception. But, it will become apparent just how misleading a "table of contents chronology" can be.e It is demonstrated in Part I that the histories of Joshua and Judges do not represent an interlude between the Torah and Kings/Chronicles narrative. The Books of Joshua and Judges do not follow the Egyptian New Kingdom Exodus of Akhenaten (Rehoboam-Moses II), but the Middle Kingdom Exodus of Hammurabi (Eber-Moses I).f

Both the Torah and Kings/Chronicles narrative of the Bible are clearly partisan and radically different in style, but when combined they provide an accurate, detailed, and balanced picture of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Heroes in one Biblical history are invariably depicted as personae non grata in the other. However, with the loss of historical context complementary accounts became mythical founts. These overlapping histories were later thought of as parochial legends of persons and events that were separated by the hundreds of years of additional history found in the books of Joshua and Judges. Only by realigning the independent histories of the Old Testament with the help of archaeology can an accurate ancient chronology be determined, and the true identities of Biblical characters be recovered.

The New Testament Book of Matthew (1:17) informs us that there were 14 generations between Abraham and King David. In Part I of this book, it is instead proven that Abraham was a contemporary of David!g It was later believed that they were widely separated in time due to the respective biases of the Torah and Kings/Chronicles narrative, and the artificial ordering of Old Testament books. This distortion had already become firmly ingrained by the 1st Century AD. In the Kings/Chronicles narrative, David (a composite of pharaohs Thutmose I & III) is the impassioned warrior and founder of the "United Kingdom," a dynasty that ruled from the Nile to the Euphrates. In the Kings/Chronicles narrative Abraham is given the name of Eliab. He has seniority over David, but according to the author of the Kings/Chronicles narrative he has the head but not the heart for true greatness. In the Torah, David is not a composite. Instead, the father and son combination are named separately. The father is called Abimelech ("Father of the King") and is treated with considerable disdain. His natural son Isaac is esteemed, because he is the legal son and heir of Abraham. In the Torah, Abraham (Egyptian General Djehuty) and not David is the intellectual giant who establishes that same "New Kingdom" dynasty in Israel and Egypt through patience and clever strategy.

In the Kings/Chronicles narrative, there is no account of the Exodus. Akhenaten (Moses II) is not venerated as Moses, but instead called Rehoboam, the foolish "son" and successor of wise Solomon. In the final chapter of Part I and continuing with Part II, it is shown that the 40-year reign of Solomon is the cultural memory of the renowned Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III, with a strong emphasis on the latter of the two pharaohs. Amenhotep III like Biblical Solomon reigned for 40 years and was the predecessor of Akhenaten who in turned ruled for 17 years.h Biblical Rehoboam is also credited with ruling for 17 years. The history of the Torah concludes with the Exodus under Akhenaten (Moses II). However, the Kings/Chronicles narrative continues after the 17-year reign of Akhenaten (Rehoboam) with no apparent interruption. The Kings/Chronicles narrative records the humbling of Akhenaten in his Year 5, but does not mention the more ignominious fall from power in his Year 17. Moreover, the mercy killing of a mixed multitude of sick and dying subjects is also not recalled. This unfortunate event of Lower Egypt was either not considered important from an Upper Egyptian (Theban) perspective or discretely omitted. The survivors of the New Kingdom Exodus of Akhenaten were reintegrated within Egyptian territory, and remained under Egypt's jurisdiction. Life went on.

In Part II of Living in Truth: Archaeology and the Patriarchs, the surprising conclusion is reached that the "Sojourn" of Abraham and his descendants in Egypt did not end with the Exodus of Akhenaten (Moses II). This event did coincide with the collapse of the glorious four-generation-long civilization that was the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. However, this only marked the halfway point in a greater 430 year Saga of "Israelite" royalty in Egypt. After the reign of Solomon, the Kings/Chronicles narrative describes two rival dynasties, which ruled not only in Syria and Palestine, but also in Egypt. Biblical and Egyptian histories continue to be synonymous until the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar in the early 6th Century BC.

Archaeologists presently maintain that Nebuchadnezzar was frustrated in his attempt to conquer Egypt. However, the first century A.D. historian Josephus clearly believed otherwise. He wrote, "This Babylonian king [Nebuchadnezzar] conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldaea."i The implication is that Nebuchadnezzar excelled even the Assyrian rulers of Babylon, namely Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, in his subjugation of both Lower and Upper Egypt. In Part II of this book, it is proven that the 21st Dynasty pharaohs "rebelled" against Babylon and were deposed by Babylon. The "Jerusalem" that held out against Nebuchadnezzar for two years was not in Palestine, but Western Thebes in the "Judah" of Upper Egypt.

The royal family and nobility of Upper Egypt were deported to Babylon, but allowed to resettle in Central Palestine during the following Persian Period. These "Jews" would have been bound by oath and upon pain of death to never return to their former power base on the Nile, and to renounce all claims to kingship, past, present and future. This included renouncing that their ancestors had been pharaohs in Egypt. Having both lost their sovereignty over Egypt and being compelled to deny it, the Jews adopted an extremely critical ("sour grapes") attitude toward kingship and for Egypt itself.

In the Kings/Chronicles narrative,j forefathers are named as rulers over part of the former Egyptian Empire in Israel (Palestine), but not in Egypt proper. In the Torah,k an even more extreme position is taken. The same ancestors are on occasion called princes, but it is never explicitly acknowledged that they were also kings, either in Egypt or in Israel. The Torah implicitly upholds the right of Adam (Atum) and his immediate descendants to kingship, however it rejects the notion that Noah and his sons were entitled to do the same after the Great Flood. In Genesis, the family of Noah is instructed to replenish the earth, but the mandate of Adam and Eve to "subdue" it is conspicuously absent.l In fact, they are explicitly prohibited from taking human life, the traditional prerogative of kings.

a. Genesis 1:28 (KJV)
b. See Chapters 1-3.
c. See Chapters 4-8.
d. See Chapters 9-14.
e. Chart 9 compares the "table of contents" chronology of the Bible with the actual relationships between books.
f. See Chapters 7-8.
g. For the interleaving of David and Abraham, see Chapters 9-14.
h. See Chapters 9 & 16.
i. Josephus, Contra Appion. lib. I. c. 19.
j. 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles
k. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy
l. Genesis 9:1

Click to expand...

Laura said:

I've downloaded the doc and I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow. I've already gone overtime here in the chair!

Click to expand...

Translation
Folio 194r (lower text) lines 29–30 to 194v line 30:

Decius was concerned about the wrongdoing of the auxiliary troops and the capture of Philippopolis. And when the army was gathered, about 80,000 men, he wanted to renew the war if he could—as he thought that the situation was favorable to him, even though he had lost the auxiliary force—but also to liberate the Thracian captives and to prevent them from crossing to the other side. And for the moment, having built a trench at Hamisos [?], a place of Beroina [?], he stayed inside the encampment together with his army, watching for when the enemy were to cross. When the advance of Ostrogotha’s force was reported to him, he thought that he should encourage his soldiers, as a good opportunity arose. And he made an assembly, and when they had gathered, he spoke as follows:

“Men, I wish the military force and all the provincial territory were in a good condition and not humiliated by the enemy. But since the incidents of human life bring manifold sufferings (for such is the fate of mortals), it is the duty of prudent men to accept what happens and not to lose their spirit, nor become weak, distressed by the mishap in that plain or by the capture of the Thracians—in case any of you has been disheartened by these things. For each of these two misfortunes offers arguments against your discourage- ment: the former was brought about by the treachery of the scouts rather than by any deficiency of ours, and the Thracian town they [sc. the Scythians] took by ambushes rather than through prowess, having failed in their attacks. And weak ...
{and not}24 brave ... ||[...”

In the left (outer) margin: [De]cius’ address (demegoria)

Folio 195r (lower text) lines 1–30:

...]|| (they) formed the rear-guard, claiming to be particularly valiant and having a reputation of being the fiercest. They pre- tended to withdraw but stayed in the area. Not shrinking from abiding there, they built a camp as secretly as they could and lodged not far from the enemies, so that the attack could be pre- pared within a short time. They did, however, refrain from lighting fires at night, fearing that they might be seen.
When they believed that the Thracians had become firmly con- vinced of their withdrawal—so much so that a rebellion against those in power had arisen (as tends to happen where there is a mass of people) and caused carelessness with the guard duty, and some had given themselves to merriment, as if the war had ended and they had achieved a splendid victory—at that point they decided to attack the town. For an advantage gained by betrayal had also encouraged them: a man had stolen away from the town and provided Cniva with information about the city (as was said, either out of hatred against one of those in power or in the hope of a big reward). And he convinced the Scythians to hold on even more firmly to their plan of attacking by promising them to give those who would be dispatched the signal in accordance with what had been agreed in the place where the fortifications could be climbed most easily. Five men, who had volunteered out of zeal and in hope of money, were sent out by Cniva by night as scouts to check what had been reported and to test the arranged betrayal. Prizes were set by the king: 500 darics for the first to climb the walls, for the sec||[ond ...

Click to expand...

417 Thus was the first enclosure. In the midst of which, and not far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by a few steps: this was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner to go in under pain of death. 418 Now this inner enclosure had on its southern and northern quarters three gates [equally] distant one from another; but on the east quarter, towards the sun-rising, there was one large gate, through which such as were pure came in, together with their wives; 419 but the temple further inward in that gate was not allowed to the women; but still more inward was there a third [court of the] temple, where into it was not lawful for any but the priests alone to enter. The temple itself was within this; and before that temple was the altar, upon which we offer our sacrifices and burnt-offerings to God. 420 Into none of these three did king Herod enter, for he was forbidden, because he was not a priest. However, he took care of the cloisters and the outer enclosures, and these he built in eight years.

421 6. But the temple itself was built by the priests in a year and six months; upon which all the people were full of joy; and presently they returned thanks, in the first place, to God; and in the next place, for the alacrity the king had showed. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of the temple: 422 and for the king, he sacrificed three hundred oxen to God, as did the rest every one according to his ability; the number of which sacrifices is not possible to set down, for it cannot be that we should truly relate it; 423 for at the same time with this celebration for the work about the temple fell also the day of the king’s inauguration, which he kept of an old custom as a festival, and it now coincided with the other, which coincidence of them both made the festival most illustrious.

424 7. There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. 425 It is also reported, that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple.

Click to expand...

219 7. And now it was that the temple was finished. So when the people saw that the workmen were unemployed, who were above eighteen thousand and that they, receiving no wages, were in want because they had earned their bread by their labors about the temple; ...

Click to expand...

284 6. When Petronius had said this, and had dismissed the assembly of the Jews, he desired the principal of them to take care of their husbandry, and to speak kindly to the people, and encourage them to have good hope of their affairs. Thus did he readily bring the multitude to be cheerful again. And now did God show his presence to Petronius, and signify to him that he would afford him his assistance in his whole design; 285 for he had no sooner finished the speech that he made to the Jews, but God sent down great showers of rain, contrary to human expectation; for that day was a clear day, and gave no sign, by the appearance of the sky, of any rain; nay, the whole year had been subject to a great drought, and made men despair of any water from above, even when at any time they saw the heavens overcast with clouds; 286 insomuch that when such a great quantity of rain came, and that in an unusual manner, and without any other expectation of it, the Jews hoped that Petronius would by no means fail in his petition for them. But as to Petronius, he was mightily surprised when he perceived that God evidently took care of the Jews, and gave very plain signs of his appearance, and this to such a degree, that those that were in earnest much inclined to the contrary had no power left to contradict it. 287 This was also among those other particulars which he wrote to Caius, which all tended to dissuade him, and by all means to entreat him not to make so many ten thousands of these men go distracted; whom, if he should slay, (for without war they would by no means suffer the laws of their worship to be set aside,) he would lose the revenue they paid him, and would be publicly cursed by them for all future ages. 288 Moreover, that God, who was their Governor, had shown his power most evidently on their account, and that such a power of his as left no room for doubt about it. And this was the business that Petronius was now engaged in.

Click to expand...