Автор сообщения: gorm
Дата и время сообщения: 26 April 2004 at 15:41:50:
В ответ на сообщение: Re: 31 vs 33
Вот что пишет Деклерк про длинную хронологию Христа.
In the second and third centuries, the synoptic chronology, which ascribes only one year to the public ministry of Christ (and implies that he died at the age of 30 or 31), was without question the dominant tradition. Early in the fourth century, however, the influential bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, friend of the emperor Constantine the Great, pronounced repeatedly in favour of the long chronology of John's Gospel. In his Proof of the Gospel he ascribes to Jesus an activity of three and a half years. A similar view is taken in his Chronological Canons. Here, he maintains the fifteenth year of Tiberius to mark the beginning of Jesus's public life, but dates the Passion and Resurrection to the eighteenth regnal year of this emperor (AD 31/32). Finally, in his most important work, The History of the Church, Eusebius declares that the period of Jesus's teaching does not stretch to four complete years. In this work he also explains the discrepancy between the evangelists with regard to the chronology of Christ's life, by stating that Matthew, Mark and Luke only recorded the preaching of Jesus for the year between the arrest of John the Baptist and the crucifixion, whereas John included the period before the Baptist's imprisonment, which the other gospels had passed over in silence. Such was the authority of Eusebius of Caesarea that the long chronology, implying that Jesus was crucified when lie was 33 or 34 years old, thenceforth became the norm in the eastern half of Christendom. In the West, the short chronology, firmly associated with the consulship of the two Gemini, showed a much greater resistance. Augustine of Hippo still adhered to it and Prosper of Aquitaine explicitly preferred this system to the other, because it was - as he says in his Chronicle written in the middle of the fifth century (AD 455) - the more common tradition. In the sixth century some western authors already switched to the long chronology (Cassiodorus, Jorclanes, Gregory of Tours), but it would take till the time of Bede, one and a half centuries later, before the version following the fourth gospel could ultimately impose itself throughout Latin Christendom.
Я вот никак не могу найти, где я у Степанова вычитал, но он обращает внимание, что год Рождества по Дионисию совпадает с годом Рождества по эре Панодора. Климишин еще приводит ссылки на какой-то хронограф 4-го века в котором тот же год.