home / domum

INTROIT

• p. 20c:

  erratum:

  Above all we will understand those who say opposition between the Old and the New Covenants is an oriental metaphor for the old Rome of the and the new Rome of Caesar;

  corrige:

  Above all we will understand those who say opposition between the Old and the New Covenants is an oriental metaphor for the old Rome of the Senate and the new Rome of Caesar;

Chapter I: PRIMA VISTA

• note 28, p. 365c:

  erratum:

  The reverse of his denarius was also aimed at deterrence with the securis, the axe of the presiding pontifex maximus, in the center.

  corrige:

The obverse of his denarius was also aimed at deterrence with the securis, the axe of the presiding pontifex maximus, in the center.

Chapter III: CRUX

• p. 82e:

  erratum:

  Hence it confirms that the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion was a later and contested one (as late as 325 ad, the Council of Nicaea in its creed, the Symbolum Nicaenum does not say anything about crucifixion or Pilate).

  corrige:

  Hence it confirms that the idea of Jesus’ crucifixion was a later and contested one (as late as 325 ad, the Council of Nicaea in its creed, the Symbolum Nicaenum, in the original form does not say anything about crucifixion or Pilate[190b]).

• [190b] The Original Form of the Nicene Creed, as adopted at Nicæa (A.D. 325), does not mention Pilate nor the crucifixion:
  Pisteuomen eiV ena QEON PATERA pantokratora, pantwn oratwn te kai aoratwn poihthn.
  Kai eiV ena kurion IHSOUN CRISTON, ton uion tou qeou, genneqenta ek tou patroV monogenh, toutestin ek thV ousiaV tou patroV, qeon ek qeou, fwV ek fwtoV, qeon alhqinon ek qeou alhqinou, genneqenta, ou poihqenta, omoousion tw patri: di ou ta panta egeneto, ta te en tw ouranw kai ta epi thV ghV ton di hmaV touV anqrwpouV kai dia thn hmeteran swthrian katelqonta kai sarkwqenta kai enanqrwphsanta, paqonta, kai anastanta th trith hmera, kai anelqonta eiV touV ouranouV, kai ercomenon krinai zwntaV kai nekrouV.
  Kai eiV to AGION PNEUMA.
  TouV de legontaV, oti hn pote ote ou hn, kai prin gennhqenai ouk hn, kai oti ex ouk ontwn egeneto, h ex eteraV upostasewV h ousiaV faskontaV einai, [h ktiston,] trepton h alloiwton ton uion tou qeou, [toutouV] anaqematizei h katolikh [kai apostolikh] ekklhsia.
  And here its Latin Version according to Hilarius Pictaviensis (between A.D. 356 and 361):
  Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium factorem.
  Et in unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei, natum ex Patre unigenitum, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, Lumen ex Lumine, Deum verum, de Deo vero, natum, non factum, unius substantiæ cum Patre, quod Græci dicunt homoousion; per quem, omnia facta, sunt, quæ in cælo et in terra; qui [propter nos homines et] propter nostram salutem descendit, incarnatus est et homo factus est, et passus est; et resurrexit tertia die, et ascendit in cælos; venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.
  Et in Spiritum Sanctum.
  Eos autem qui dicunt: 'erat, quando non erat,' et 'antequam nasceretur, non erat,' et 'quod de non exstantibus factus est,' vel 'ex alia, substantia' aut 'essentia,' dicentes ['creatum, aut] 'convertibilem et demutabilem Filium Dei,' hos anathematizat catholica [et apostolica] ecclesia.
  Cf. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, Volume II. The History of Creeds, by Philip Schaff: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/creeds2/htm/ii.xii.ii.iii.htm
  Pilate and the crucifixion appear later, in the enlarged Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 325 and 381):
  http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/creeds2/htm/ii.xi.xiv.htm
  Notice that also numerous and important ante-nicene Church Fathers do not mention Pilate and the crucifixion in their Creed, i.a.: Cyprian (Carthage) A.D. 250, Novatian (Rome) A.D. 250, Origenes (Alexandria) A.D. 230, Gregory (Neo Caesarea) A.D. 270, Lucian (Antioch) A.D. 300, Eusebius (Caesarea, Pal.) A.D. 325, Cyril (Jerusalem) A.D. 350. [<]

corrige:

But the fact of the matter is that in the process, Pompeius had entangled himself in inner-Jewish quarrels over the throne, in which the two brothers fighting over regality had made him arbiter, and he then had to besiege, together with the older one whom he favored, the younger one who was barricading himself in Jerusalem.

• p. 85 and note 183:

erratum: p.85

An accidental coincidence of the calendar?

For although Caesar had reformed the calendar one year earlier, switching over from the old-Roman one, which had got into disorder, to the solar one, called the Julian after him—which actually made the concurrence of the Roman Ides on the 15th of March, now reckoned according to the sun, with the Jewish Passover, still reckoned according to the moon, on the 15th of Nizan a rarity—it just so happened that in 44 BC the 15th of March, of all days, was a full moon day: that is to say that on Caesar’s Ides of March it was Passover at the same time (cf. note 183).
Due to an even less probable coincidence, Caesar’s funeral on the 20th of March fell on a Sunday, of all days, so that Caesar’s funeral which was perceived as his resurrection occured on the same day of the week as the resurrection of Jesus.
The simultaneous occurence of both ‘coincidences’, that there is a full moon on the 15th of March and the 20th is a Sunday, happens once every 532 years! (cf. note 183).

Apparently it was full moon not on March 15th, 44 BC, but on March 15th, 45 BC.
We were misled by calendar calculators not dealing correctly with the missing year 0, resp. taking -44 CE for 44 BC instead for 45 BC.
Sorry. Errare humanum est :-)
As it seems, the calendrical point of reference for Dionysius Exiguus and his patrons was not the very year of the death of Caesar, but the year of the introduction of his new calendar, i.e. the year before.
This changes not much in substance, but it has to be treated appropriately.

corrige: p. 85

An accidental coincidence of the calendar?

Caesar had reformed the calendar one year earlier (46/45), switching over from the old-Roman solar-lunar one which had become a mess, to the solar one, called the Julian after him—which actually made the concurrence of the Roman Ides on the 15th of March, now reckoned according to the sun, with the Jewish Passover, still reckoned according to the moon, on the 15th of Nizan, a rarity. However, since Caesar apparently let the first year of the new calendar, 45, start with the moon prima luce, it just so happened that in 45 BC the 15th of March, was a full moon day: that is to say that on the Ides of March of the initial year it was Passover at the same time (cf. note 183).
This, of course, changed in the following years, because there is a difference of 11 to 12 days between solar and lunar years. Since the future is, in a sense, already present at the beginning, however, and since the Jews at that time apparently conformed to the valid calendar of their respective area of residence in the timing of their Passover (cf. note 183), it might be that at least the Caesareans among them went with the Julian calendar in the next year also and celebrated Passover simultaneously with the Ides of March, on which a lamb was sacrificed also, the ovis Idulis.

Subsequently:
erratum: note 183 p. 397-398:

Fortunately, as is often the case, the solution to the mystery is simpler than one might think. We have seen that the fifteenth of the Aramaic month Nisan (Hebrew Abib), i. e. the first month of spring, beginning with the new moon, corresponds with the Ides of March. This is based on the calculation of the Jews for their Passover-feast ‘after the cycle of the moon beginning from the spring equinox (= depending on calculation, between the 20th and 25th of March)’ (Philo zu Ex. 12.2). But because all the other nations in principle did the same, as a rule they used the month of the civilian calendar of the respective areas wherein the spring equinox occurred—so in Syria it was regularly the Xantikos, in Alexandria the Parmuthi and in Rome just March. On the full moon of this month the Passover was celebrated (cf. G. Gentz, RE s. v. ‘Ostern’ Sp. 1647-48). But now, one year earlier, 45 BC, Caesar had introduced the solar calendar, named the Julian calendar after him. Chance has it that on the Ides of March 44 BC it was full moon as can easily be calculated on the basis of Julian calendar which is still valid in the Eastern Church, as well as with the help of the Easter tables of Dionysius Exiguus. The month of March perfectly corresponded to Nizan.
So the Jews among the Caesareans, respectively the Caesareans among the Jews, celebrated their Passover in Rome in the year 44 BC on the same date as the Romans did the Ides, which also included the ritual offering of a lamb—ovis Idulis—to Jupiter.

corrige:

Fortunately, as is often the case, the solution to the mystery is simpler than one might think. We have seen that the fifteenth of the Aramaic month Nisan (Hebrew Abib), i. e. the first month of spring, beginning with the new moon, corresponds with the Ides of March. This is based on the calculation of the Jews for their Passover-feast ‘after the cycle of the moon beginning from the spring equinox (= depending on calculation, between the 20th and 25th of March)’ (Philo zu Ex. 12.2). But because all the other nations in principle did the same, as a rule they used the month of the civilian calendar of the respective areas wherein the spring equinox occurred—so in Syria it was regularly the Xantikos, in Alexandria the Parmuthi and in Rome just March. On the full moon of this month the Passover was celebrated (cf. G. Gentz, RE s. v. ‘Ostern’ Sp. 1647-48). But now, one year earlier, 46/45 BC, Caesar had introduced the solar calendar, named the Julian calendar after him. Chance has it that on the Ides of March 45 BC it was full moon as can easily be calculated on the basis of Julian calendar which is still valid in the Eastern Church, as well as with the help of the Easter tables of Dionysius Exiguus. In the first year according to the new calendar the month of March perfectly corresponded to Nizan.
This was different in the following year because there is a difference of 11 to 12 days between solar and lunar years. However, since the future is, in a sense, already present at the beginning, the Jews among the Caesareans, respectively the Caesareans among the Jews, might very well have celebrated their Passover in Rome in the year 44 BC on the same date as the Romans did the Ides, which also included the ritual offering of a lamb—ovis Idulis—to Jupiter.

then delete for the moment from:

“However, this later Easter dispute was pre-programmed because of the calendrical coincidences of Caesar’s funeral. …”, p. 397d

until:

“… But back to Caesar and our question:” p 398e

(this passage will be re-written later).

Excursus: RE-ORIENTATION

[ Table of contents ]