My Benefactor had Some Points to Make on the Post About the 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

Here are his questions, not the least pointless, but very good for those who do not know from before why I support the thesis of Father Jean Colson.

Stephan Borgehammar

"Jag får erkänna att jag inte förstår mycket av detta."
Admitting I don't get much of this.

"Hur kan år 440 bli 1 f.Kr.?"
How can year 440 be 1BC?

"Varför är den 70:e årsveckan och år 487 intressanta?"
Why are seventieth week and year 487 interesting?

"Och varför ska vi anta att aposteln Johannes under en kort tid var överstepräst?"
And why should we presume the Apostle John under a short time was High Priest?

"Jag betvivlar inte din lärdom men tror att du överskattar dina läsare!"
I don't doubt your erudtion but think you overestimate your readers.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"440 i Daniels 70 årsveckor."
Year 440 in the 70 year weeks of Daniel (not in AD)

"Jag har redan tidigare uppmärksammat Jean Colson's thes att Evangelisten intet var en af de tolf."
I have already earlier shown interest in the thesis by (Father) Jean Colson that the Gospeller was not one of the twelve.

"St. Irenaeus som lemnade Mindre Asien som tonåring kan ha förvexlat dem."
St. Irenee who left Asia Minor as a teen can have confused them.

"Patres qvar i Mindre Asien verka ge ett annat intryck, som när Papias nämner en Johannes Presbyter (NB att ett bref af Johannes tillegnas dennes "synpresbyteroi" - en engelsk convertit hade antagit att detta de facto betydde medbiskopar och att biskop och presbyter bytt betydelse efter första århundradet) eller en annan i en strid om påskdatum hänvisar till en Johannes som burit gyllene hufvudbindeln."
Fathers staying behind in Asia Minor seem to give another impression, like when Papias mentions a John Presbyteros (NB, one of the Johannine letters is dedicated to his "synpresbyteroi" - an English convert had presumed this de facto means fellow bishops and that bishop and presbyter switched meaning after First Century) or another one in a dispute about the date of Easter referring to a John who had worn the golden headband.

"Jean Colson antar att den elskade lärjungen var en cohen, hvilket förklarar att han kände till Jerusalem så mycket bättre än Galileen, var känd af öfverstepresten, kunde taga med den hl. Jungfrun hem till sig redan Långfredag (altså hade ett hus i Jerusalem eller nära på), och antar att han var ute och diskade i sitt hus medan de tolf hade Instiftelsen : att han intet nämner den beror på att han intet var med."
(Father) Jean Colson presumes that the beloved disciple was a Cohen, which explains why he knew Jerusalem so much better than Galilee, was known by the High Priest, could take the Blessed Virgin home to his house already on Good Friday (meaning he had a house in Jerusalem or close by) and presumes he was (out of the cubiculum) and washing dishes while the twelve attended the Institution (of the Eucharist) : his not mentioning it is because he didn't attend it.

"Jag tar gerna en uppfölgande post om detta, der jag också går in på huru detta kan röra sig om öfverstepresten Theophilos (om Gud elskade honom hade han rätt till det namnet), snarare än en kortvarig okänd mellan Josephus Ben hvem det nu var och Ananias."
I'll be glad to take a follow up blog post on this, where I also mention how this could be the High Priest Theophilos (if God loved him, he had a right to that name), rather than a short one between Josephus Ben whoever it was (Josephus ben Camydus) and Ananias ( son of Nedebeus).

"Och huru det passar ihop med andra facta fr ån Acta Johannis som att oljan intet brände honom, och att han steg ned i sin graf, gjorde ett korstecken, det sken ett ljus och qvar var manna."
And how this fits other facts from Acta Johannis (which I think Jean Colson was wrong to consider a novel) like the oil not burning him, or how, when he stepped down into his grave, he made a sign of the cross, there was a bright light, and left was mannah.

"Och hans ovilja mot romerska mynt."
And his reluctance to Roman coins.

"Och den hl. Jungfrun hade fostrats bland Cohanim mellan fjerde lefnadsåret och förlofningen med St. Joseph."
And the Blessed Virgin had been raised among Cohanim between the fourth year of her life and the betrothal to St. Joseph (so, when Christ made Her fostermother of a Cohen, He provided for Her feeling at home).

So, making some fleshing out on points made and also on points I missed ...

The Roman Martyrology gives the date of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the terms of several epochs:

• Creation
• Flood
• Birth of Abraham
• Exodus from Egypt
• Fall of Troy (in earlier, not later versions)
• Anointing of King David (I think there can be a mix-up between 1082 and 1032, so that 1032 really is Temple of Solomon, and anointing 1082 BC, as is stated by George Syncellus)
• Olympiad and year from first Olympiad
• Founding of Rome (remains in later versions)
• Week of Daniel (63:rd in 15th C. version, 65:th in later ones, triggering my interest)
• Year of Augustus
• Sixth "age of the world" (sixth millennium, corresponding to but not literally meant by six creation days, sixt day saw the creation of the First Adam, who fell, sixth "age" the incarnation of Last Adam and re-creation of man)
• unique occasion of peace over all Roman Empire.

1 BC = 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood, 2015 after Birth of Abraham, 1510 after Exodus and so on.

So, obviously 1 BC is not going to equal 1 after Creation, and also not 1 in the seventy weeks of Daniel.

This is interesting, because some of the present end times prophecy interpreters consider Christ was cut off (crucified) but not for himself (for the sins of others) between week 69 and 70, this being Jesus, not another Christ, and that after this, the 70 weeks of Daniel stopped ticking and the end times is the last, still remaining, week.

Those who did cut off Jesus did so because they took offense precisely at him. If on the other hand it refers to a Cohen, that Cohen could have been cut off for someone else, namely for Christ risen. Hence it becomes very interesting if Jesus THE Christ was born in the 65th or 63rd week of Daniel. If, as the earlier version of the martyrology stated, it was in the 63rd week, that's were my little thesis comes in. Or perhaps not so small one.

The confirming of the covenant in the middle of week 70 (meaning at a mid point in year 487!) has by some been referred to as meaning a deceitful covenant signed by Antichrist, by William Tapley, Third Eagle of the Apocalypse, as Henoch or Elijah confirming the covenant, by one been taken as Institution of the Eucharist.

I take it as not the institution of the Eucharist, but its being confirmed publically before the Cohanim in the Temple. Confirmed - you see, the Cohanim had seemingly deposed Kaiphas and replaced him by Hannas, if you check Acts 4, and the Cohanim had forbidden the Apostles to preach in the name of Jesus, as a kind of preventive measure, not as a final condemnation. And John the Gospeller is present in Acts 4 - not the comrade of St. Peter, but one of the Cohanim.

Later, when Theophilus (I presume he took John as Baptismal name) was High Priest, he asked Luke to do an investigation - and he was able to check that his memories from being one of the seventy-two disciples match what St. Luke could gather from the Christian community. It would have been he who allowed St. Luke to meet and also to paint the Blessed Virgin. He gets baptised as John before Luke finishes the second book, presumably having John of Zebedee either as sponsor or more probably as baptising and confirming bishop. Therefore he is called John and not Theophilus in Acts 4.

Later when Josephus is High Priest, Josephus ben Camydus, he has also been a disciple and allows Theophilus to get ordained as a presbyter, which is as high in orders as the Gospeller gets. He allows him to celebrate Holy Mass as the daily sacrifice in the temple. In the middle of the seventieth week, this is interrupted by Ananias replacing him.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

"And he"

Theophilus / St. John. Or Josephus ben Camydus authorising him.

"shall confirm the covenant with many,"

The Holy Mass was halakhically confirmed by celebration in the Temple.

"in one week:"

This confirmation continued all through week seventy, but not all of it in the temple.

"and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail:"

Could refer to an abolishing of animal sacrifice or could refer to expulsion of Holy Mass by the intruder Ananias.

"and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation:"

Ananias could have brought this about either by sacrilege against Holy Mass, or by introduction of a Roman idol statue. Or it could be Agrippa II who did this.

"and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end."

The Temple never again saw Holy Mass until week 70 was over in AD 50 or until it was destroyed in year 70 AD.

The seventy weeks were introduced as involving the anointing of the prince, and a Cohen Gadol is indeed a prince of the Hebrew nation, and the sacrament of confirmation, as well as the sacrament of holy orders, are indeed anointings.

Revelation of the contents of the faith, of the depositum fidei, was closed when the last apostle died - if this is the last of the twelve, my thesis is wrong, but if one of the seventy two is OK, it can very well be right. The seventy two are also referred to as apostles, especially among Greeks.

I have NOT yet checked up about Theophilus and Josephus ben Camydus in Josephus' Antiquities.

It is said that after the beginning of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant could be externally observed, provided one did not place one's hope of salvation in it, until the New Covenant was published. But from then on it is a mortal sin to obey the Old Covenant. What publication is this about? Preaching in the streets of Jerusalem on Pentecost Day? If so, Our Lady living in the home of a Cohen would be inexplicable, likewise how the disciples prayed in the temple. So, the "publication" this dogma (or at least doctrine) refers to would likely be the one I envisage for 47 AD, or around there, namely publically in the Temple.

Epistle to the Hebrews and especially chapter 13 verse 10 was written after this.

Habemus altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deserviunt.

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.

Ananias son of Nebedeus very certainly was excommunicated, if he did what I envisage. If he had wanted to get into Communion with the Christians, he would have had to not only get baptised, but also out of the Temple as to what it had become.

As for overstimating or not my readers, I am not sure who Stephan thinks is my readers. Him being one of them, and one of the more erudite ones. Glad to have cleared things up a bit, since he had missed my previous work endorsing the work of Father Jean Colson. Except its dictum that Acts of John were a kind of novel.

One of the perks with blog posts is, it can be edited or a new one can be added.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Marguerite Audoux
St. Francis of Sales
29.I.2020

Sancti Francisci Salesii, Episcopi Gebennensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, omnium Scriptorum catholicorum, diariis aliisve scriptis in vulgus edendis sapientiam Christianam illustrantium ac provehentium et tutantium, peculiaris apud Deum Patroni; qui migravit in caelum quinto Kalendas Januarii, sed hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum colitur.

PS, I think some readers may be not very aware of the Christmas reading in the Roman Martyrology, so, I give a post on the background to its inclusion in the late Middle Ages and another one about the way in which martyrologies were in general made. Both being of course not only of interest, but already known to Stephan, whose beneficence is not just material:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Feet and Martyrologies
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/feet-and-martyrologies.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

PPS, the man who considered Christ confirmed the covenant with many (correctly identifying the covenant as the Covenant that is New and Eternal and in the Chalice of the Eucharist) on the Last Supper, I had momentarily forgot his name, but it was Gary Del Mar. Came across him, bc he had a debate with Kent Hovind on end times./HGL