Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Classical Studies
  4. Ancient history
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

23990 results in Ancient history

Page 750 of 1200

  • 6 - The moon will be turned to blood

  • Colin J. Humphreys, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The Mystery of the Last Supper
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    28 March 2011, pp 80-94

  • Summary

    When the day of Pentecost came, they [the apostles] were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven … All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

    Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: ‘Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my spirit on all people … I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”’

    (Acts 2:1–2, 4, 14–17, 19–21)

    Picture the dramatic scene. Peter spoke the above words on the day of Pentecost, to the crowds who had gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate this feast, the second of the three great Jewish feasts.

  • 10 - Was the lost ancient Jewish calendar used in Israel at the time of Jesus?

  • Colin J. Humphreys, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The Mystery of the Last Supper
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    28 March 2011, pp 135-150

  • Summary

    He [Jesus] came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph … Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him … they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two more days. And because of his words many more became believers. They said … ‘We know that this man really is the Saviour of the World.’

    (John 4:5, 39–42)

    Today we use the Gregorian calendar. However, the earlier Julian calendar has persisted down to today and is still used by various groups (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.) to calculate the date of Easter. In the previous chapter we discovered the lost pre-exilic Jewish calendar. Did Jesus choose to use this calendar to celebrate his last supper as a Passover meal, held at least one day before the date in the official Jewish calendar? Clearly he could only have done so if he knew about this calendar. Hence in this chapter I am going to ask the key question whether the pre-exilic calendar persisted down to the first century ad and whether it was used by one or more groups in Israel at the time of Jesus. We will start by considering the Samaritans.

    THE SAMARITANS

    The Samaritans are frequently mentioned in the gospels. For example, according to John 4, quoted above, Jesus had a group of followers in Samaria who declared him to be ‘the Saviour of the World’.

  • 4 - Can we reconstruct the Jewish calendar at the time of Christ?

  • Colin J. Humphreys, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The Mystery of the Last Supper
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    28 March 2011, pp 39-60

  • Summary

    Some of Judaism's most profound truths are to be found, not in texts but in time, in the Jewish calendar itself.

    (Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth)

    The Jewish calendar must have been at least as central to the lives of Jewish people at the time of Christ as our calendar is to us today. For example, on Nisan 1, in the spring of each year, Jews would have marked the start of their religious year (their civil year, used for official purposes, started in the autumn). In the first two weeks of Nisan, Jewish people would have travelled from many countries to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Feast of Passover. On Nisan 10 they would have selected a Passover lamb for sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem on Nisan 14, as instructed in the book of Exodus. On Nisan 15 they would have eaten their Passover meal and remembered the events of the Exodus. On Nisan 16 they might have watched the barley being harvested in the fields, after seeing the priests waving the first sheaves of barley in the temple earlier that day, as specified in the book of Leviticus, and so on.

    The Jewish calendar must have been so central to the lives of Jewish people in the first century ad, for both religious and agricultural reasons, that to my mind it is simply not credible that the traditions handed down by eye-witnesses to the gospel writers were confused about whether Jesus died on Nisan 14 or 15, particularly because these two days, when the Passover lambs were slain, roasted and eaten, were the most important days in the whole year in the Jewish calendar.

  • 5 - The date of the crucifixion

  • Colin J. Humphreys, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The Mystery of the Last Supper
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    28 March 2011, pp 61-79

  • Summary

    for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

    (1 Corinthians 5:7)

    But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

    (1 Corinthians 15:20)

    In the last chapter I argued that we can use astronomy to reconstruct the first-century ad Jewish calendar. In this chapter we will see if it is possible to use our reconstructed calendar, together with biblical and historical clues, to determine not only the year but also the precise day and month on which Christ died. If we know this date, this enables us to start to answer the question of whether or not the last supper was a Passover meal. In particular, in Chapter 3 we gave four possible interpretations of the gospels concerning the date and nature of the last supper. In this chapter we will show that we can reject two of these interpretations. As we will see, both biblical and non-biblical clues fit together in a most remarkable way.

    DETERMINING THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION

    Let us start by reminding ourselves about what we already know. In Chapters 2 and 3, I showed that the crucifixion was in the period ad 26–36, it was on a Friday and it was on either Nisan 14 or 15 in the official Jewish calendar, depending on the correct interpretation of John's gospel and the synoptics. Virtually all biblical scholars agree with these three statements, and I believe they are correct, beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 3 - The problem of the last supper

  • Colin J. Humphreys, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The Mystery of the Last Supper
    Published online:
    03 May 2011
    Print publication:
    28 March 2011, pp 26-38

  • Summary

    And he [Jesus] said to them [his disciples at the last supper], ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer’… Then seizing him, they [the temple guard] led him away and took him into the house of the high priest [Caiaphas].

    (Luke 22:15, 54)

    Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.

    (John 18:28)

    These passages from Luke and John strikingly illustrate the problem of the time and nature of the last supper. The verse from John seems to follow on from the verses from Luke, except that the Feast of Passover has been shifted from before the arrest and trials of Jesus to after these events. If Jesus had already eaten the Passover with his disciples before his arrest and trials (Luke, and also Matthew and Mark), how was it that the Jews were still waiting to eat the Passover after his arrest and trials (John)? This looks like a straight contradiction and, as I have written earlier, it has puzzled biblical scholars for centuries. In this chapter we will examine some of the solutions that have been proposed. First, I want to explore in detail the apparent disagreement between the gospels about the last supper.

  • Appendix 2 - oratio

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • Edited by David Mankin, Cornell University, New York
  • Book:
    Cicero: <I>De Oratore</I> Book III
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    10 March 2011, pp 330-330

  • Summary

    In De or. 3 the term oratio is used in at least seven different, if sometimes overlapping senses:

  • 1. ‘individual speech, oration’ (6, 19, 31, 96, 103, 105, 109, 169, 181, 213, 220, possibly 100; see 149, 153nn.).

  • 2. ‘individual discourse (of any sort)’ (9, 24, 91, 137, possibly 228 (or sense 3)).

  • 3. ‘oratory in general’ (23, 25–6, 29, 53, 79, 91, 131, 141, 144, 167, 182, 185, 194, 199, 202, 204–6, 208, 210, 212; possibly 16 (or sense 6), 30 (or sense 5), 147 (or sense 1), 152 (or sense 1), 170 (or sense 5 or 6), 174 (or sense 5), 178 (or sense 6), 192 (or sense 1), 201 (or sense 6); see 50, 96nn.).

  • 4. ‘prose (as opposed to verse)’ (173, 175, 184; possibly 100, 198 (or sense 3)).

  • 5. ‘prose style’ (32; possibly 33 (or sense 1); see 50, 51, 142nn.).

  • 6. ‘speech/discourse in general’ (66, 100, 126, 167, 169, 172, 176–7, 186, 190, 222; possibly 161 (or sense 3), 203 (or sense 5); see 50, 142, 149, 167nn.).

  • 7. ‘phrase (as opposed to single word)’ (167, 169).

  • Preface

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • Edited by David Mankin, Cornell University, New York
  • Book:
    Cicero: <I>De Oratore</I> Book III
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    10 March 2011, pp vii-viii

  • Summary

    The purpose of this edition is to furnish advanced students of Latin literature with assistance in reading and interpreting book 3 of Cicero's De oratore. To this end I have sought to provide an accurate and readable text as well as what seems necessary information about its syntax, usage, and style, its historical, literary, and philosophical background, and the subtle and often unexpected progression of its thought and argument.

    In attempting to discharge this task I owe much, even when, for reasons of space, the debt is not explicitly acknowledged, to earlier commentaries, including those of Ernesti, Ellendt, Sorof, and Wilkins, to more recent scholarly research, especially that of E. Fantham, to the exemplary translation and guide to De or. by J. May and J. Wisse (= M–W), and, above all, to the first four volumes of the great Kommentar of A. D. Leeman and his associates (= Komm.); the fifth volume, by Wisse, M. Winterbottom, and Fantham, which covers most of book 3, did not, unfortunately, become available until my own commentary was complete, too late to be consulted without further delaying an already much-delayed project. Other works that have been of use are listed in the References, but this does not pretend to be an exhaustive bibliography, and in general citations of secondary material are limited to recent works in English which can in turn direct readers to earlier scholarship.

  • Commentary

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • Edited by David Mankin, Cornell University, New York
  • Book:
    Cicero: <I>De Oratore</I> Book III
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    10 March 2011, pp 101-325

  • Summary

    CICERO'S PROEM: THE FATES OF THE CHARACTERS IN THE DIALOGUE

    The book begins on a sombre note, with Cic. looking past the end of the dialogue to the death of Cra. just a few days later (1n.) and to the calamities which would overtake the other participants, their friends, and even their enemies in the years to come. It is striking that in his initial account of the dialogue's setting (1.24–9) Cic. did not mention any of this, and although some of his readers would have recalled the events without prompting, his cataloguing of them here seems meant to add a special poignancy to some, at least, of Cra.'s speech and especially to the remarks of the soon-to-be renegade Sulp. (147n.).

    1 Instituentimihi … renouauit: a peculiarily Ciceronian construction, in which a clause is bracketed by the dat. part. of a verb of ‘thinking’ at or near the start, then a finite verb of ‘getting an idea’ at or near the end (Laughton 1964: 37–8; cf. 13, 1.1, 6, 2.128). Quinte frater: Q. Tullius Cicero, the addressee (1.1, 2.1) and ‘instigator’ (cf. 13 below, 1.4–5, 2.10–11) of De or. He was in Italy during the time of its composition (55), in between serving as legate for Pompey in Sardinia (56), then for Caesar in Gaul (54–52). sermonem … disputationem: when mentioned together, sermo tends to indicate ‘speech in general’, disputatio more specific ‘argumentation’ (22, 107, 211, 2.16, 19–21, ThLL 1440), and Cic.

  • Appendix 3 - loci, loci communes

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • Edited by David Mankin, Cornell University, New York
  • Book:
    Cicero: <I>De Oratore</I> Book III
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    10 March 2011, pp 331-332

  • Summary

    In De or. and elsewhere the term loci (= Gk topoi (16n.)) is used of several different types of ‘argument/lines of argument’. The first usage (type a) is from technical rhetoric, and refers to standard, ‘ready-made’ arguments linked to various areas of knowledge, categories of status (70n.), and ‘means of persuasion’ (23n.) which could be found listed in handbooks. Because they are not tied to a particular case (e.g. the Lindbergh kidnapping) but can be applied to any case of a given type (first degree kidnapping) or, when they serve the ‘ethical’ or ‘pathetic’ functions, to more than one type of case (any involving a helpless victim), they are sometimes called loci communes (106n.).

    Antonius, whose task is to explain the ‘discovery’ (inuentio) of arguments, has little use for this first type of loci (cf. 2.117, 130, 133), and offers instead something quite different. His loci (type b) are ‘abstract argument patterns which help an orator to devise all his arguments himself’ (M–W 34) whatever the subject matter, issue, or purpose at hand (e.g. the locus ‘from dissimilarity’ (2.169) as the ‘source’ for an argument concerning the inhumanity of Hauptmann, the Lindbergh kidnapper). As Catulus recognizes (2.152), what Antonius expounds is a version of the so-called ‘topical method’ of Aristotle (Top., Rhet.), who likewise distinguishes between ‘ready-made arguments’ and ‘abstract argument patterns’. He calls the former idia, eide, or idiai protaseis (‘specifics’, ‘species’, ‘specific materials’; see Rhet. 1.2.21–2, 4.1–13.7, 2.1.9) if they are tied to the individual genres of oratory, or, if they are ‘common‘ to all of the genres, koina (= communia) eide (Rhet. 2.18.2–19, 27, 22.1–12; cf. 1.3.7–9, 7.1–41, 9.35–41, 14.1–7, 2.1.1–11.7).

Page 750 of 1200