Change in Martyrology ...

New blog on the kid : Change in Martyrology ... · My Benefactor had Some Points to Make on the Post About the Change in Martyrology · Remaining Questions · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Reasons Against? Like against year 47 AD

Bellini 25.12 (Venetiis 1498) Hebdomada sexagesima tertia, juxta Danielis prophetiam, scilicet anno quadringentesimo quadragesimo vel circa.

63*7 = 435 - 441 BC 1
64*7 = 442 - 448 AD 7
65*7 = 449 - 455 AD 14
66*7 = 456 - 462 AD 21
67*7 = 463 - 469 AD 28
68*7 = 470 - 476 AD 35
69*7 = 477 - 483 AD 42
70*7 = 484 - 490 AD 49

Now in martyrology : Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam

http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/22.htm

49 - 14 = 35 ...

Does the 70th week refer to sth including year 35? Or to sth including year 49?

If including year 35, arguably it refers to Christ Himself "confirming" the covenant with many.

If including year 49, Christ would have made, but someone else later "confirmed" the New Covenant. Could this refer to a Cohen - presumably is so a Cohen Gadol? - confirming the New Testament as the real Mosaically promised (Dt 28) eternal covenant?

Let's be on lookout for the possible identities of year 487:

AD 49 484? 487 = 52
AD 49 485? 487 = 51
AD 49 486? 487 = 50
AD 49 487? 487 = 49
AD 49 488? 487 = 48
AD 49 489? 487 = 47
AD 49 490? 487 = 46

One very reasonable idea is, if BC 1 is 440, second last year of 63:rd week, then AD 47 is 487, the year which has such a crucial midpoint.

Now, what does wikipedia say about the year 47 AD?

This is the year in which Ananias son of Nedebeus becomes High Priest.

English article refers to Acts 23 events:

[1] And Paul looking upon the council, said: Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good conscience before God until this present day. [2] And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and contrary to the law commandest me to be struck? [4] And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? [5] And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people.

Note the words I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest.

It could refer to his being recently just elected, of course ... and wikipedia has no article on his listed immediate predecessor, Josephus ben Camydus.

Another info is gleaned from German wiki:

Vom König Herodes von Chalkis ernannt, war Ananias von 47 bis 59 n. Chr. (mit einer Unterbrechung 52/53 n. Chr.) Hoherpriester im Tempel von Jerusalem.

And the French article ends

And what exactly does wikipedia say about the year 48 AD?

Emperor Claudius invests Agrippa II with the office of superintendent of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Could the actual naming of Agrippa II, a Herodian dynast, but one who most clearly took the Roman side, be the prefiguring of Titus?

And could there have been a coverup of one short Cohen Gadol between Josephus ben Camydus and Ananias? That one would have been able to confirm that Christ was the Messiah and His New Covenant Halakhically valid, and have been brushed aside, to be reappearing at AD 90, put in a boiling oil kettle by Domitian and surviving, exiled to Patmos, writer of Apocalypse?

And could St. Paul's words refer to him thinking John was still High Priest?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Pompidou
St. John Chrysostom
27.I.2020

Sancti Joannis Chrysostomi, Episcopi Constantinopolitani, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, caelestis Oratorum sacrorum Patroni; qui decimo octavo Kalendas Octobris obdormivit in Domino. Ejiis sacrum corpus, sub Theodosio juniore, hac die Constantinopolim, inde postea Romam translatum fuit, et in Basilica Principis Apostolorum conditum