Talk:John II (bishop of Jerusalem)

message: The idea that the date of the dedication was Yom Kippur (the fact given in the "Did You Know" column) is untenable, if the given Julian date (15 Sep 394) is correct. In that month the new moon was on Sep 11 at 23:36 UTC (Sep 12 02:57 Jerusalem solar time), as can be seen by using the calculator at . As the Jewish calendar uses lunar months, the 10th of Tishrei couldn't have been earlier than about Sep 20 (and indeed, the converter at  shows that Yom Kippur of that year was on the 21st). Aheppenh (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Article is based on the research published by M. van Esbrœck in 1984 and on the Biblical Archaeology Review article by Bargil Pixner  that says: "John ...blessed the altar of the Judeo-Christians (propitiatory, Hebrew kapporet), now in the Theodosian church, on the feast of Yom Kippur (September 15), possibly 394 A.D". In the research M. van Esbrœck starts from some homily of John Chrysostom in which is possible to know that in the 386 AD Kippur was the 18 Sept, thus saying at page 112: "La coincidence du 15 Septembre 394 avec le 10 Tishri est donc tres probable". Furthermore the whole homily is based on the idea of the necessary purification through the Mercy seat. Of course it should be nice if you edit the article adding a scholar reference that supports something different. A ntv (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The Hebrew calendar is calculated and the rules in use in such an early time were not the present ones and could vary. Read for example Hebrew calendar#Practice. So the calculus of 10 Tishrei you made using the observational date could not fit with the use in such place in the IV century. Actually I don't think that scholars like Bargil Pixner, M. van Esbrœck and journal like Biblical Archaeology Review were not able to do the calculation you did. They preferred to use a different method: to start from a known year near the 394 to minimize the errors. In Wiki we shall not dispute in base of original research, but only in base of scholar references, that are always wellcome. A ntv (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The problem of your calculation is that you presume that in the 394 the Judeo-Christian sect of Jerusalem followed a observational calendar. The Jewish calendar in such a time was calculated and could vary in use from town to town. The Essenes calendar had up to seven days (!) of difference to reconcile with the year of 365 days, so also here to take a observational date to determine a calendar day has not significance. As everything in the ancient history, nothing is so easy. Van Esbrœck guesses the 394 as most probable year because the emperor Theodosius died in 395 and from a passage of the homily it looks like he to be still alive (he paid for the new building). To pass from 384 to 394 Van Esbrœck makes a reference in a note to this text: E. Schwartz Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln Berlin 1905 pag 149-183. I don't have it nor I speak German so I cannot check. It looks like to be a quite important text because in google-book it is quoted by lots of books. You can perhaps go to a library to check the issue. Anyway this historical research is not so important: the fact is that John II in his homely makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept) and to a purification made in front of the kaponet (mercy seat) that the internal support for the Christianization of the feast of Kippur is evident. A ntv (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 Sept. = Yom Kippur? 

message: I find this confusing. A_ntv cited a sentence from Esbroek, saying that Yom Kippur was very probably on September 15, 394 AD. He also cited a sentence from the archeologist Bargil Pixner, repeating that Esbroek said this. 
But mathematics and another archeologist say that this dating is incorrect. Nor does looking at the sermon, considering that there could be other calendars, or reviewing the possible years this could have happened in seem to lead to a conclusive result. 
Mathematics
Aheppenh (in the section above of the discussion) showed that according to a converter, Yom Kippur was on the 21st.
He also says that the new moon was on September 11 in 394 AD. Naturally, a calendar with lunar months like the Jewish calendar would start the month on that day. So the month of Tishrei would start on Sept. 11, putting the 10th of Tishrei on about September 21.
A_ntv's response is that a sermon by St Chrysostom shows that 386 AD was September 18.
When I check with the converter Aheppeh gave, it shows the 10th of Tishrei falling on Sept 19th, 386 AD in the Julian Calendar used in Byzantine times, and on Sept. 20, 386 AD in the modern Calendar. So it sounds like the calendar converter Aheppeh uses must not be too far off. There's a difference of a day or two with St Chrysostom's sermon, but maybe the saint was talking about the eve of Yom Kippur. 
Unfortunately, it isn't clear what mathematical calculations Esbroeck used to find his dating
Another archeologist
In the book "The impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity", Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra writes that the sermon happened on a special week of Christian celebrations called "the Encaenia".
Ben Ezra records that this special week was celebrated from 13 to 20th of Semptember, and a major purpose of the celebrations was to celebrate the Exaltation of the Cross and the Dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He mentions the pilgrim Egeria's view that this week was scheduled in accorance with the Dedication of Solomon's Temple, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 7:8-10, on the 8th-14th of Tishrei. The holidays' dates are roughly similar.
Ben Ezra writes: "this homily... was delivered by John II... on the third day of the Encaenia, one day after the Exaltation of the Cross (15 September 394). If van Esbroeck's dating of the dedication is correct, the last day of the week of Encaenia (20 September), coincided with the eve of Yom Kippur." (page 300)
Using a different Calendar? (even then it seems unlikely to would produce such a result)
A_ntv wrote: "The Hebrew calendar is calculated and the rules in use in such an early time were not the present ones and could vary."
That makes sense, but just because they could have varied doesn't mean the calendar did vary. And it seems strange for the months to vary very much, because then "lunar months" wouldn't be starting from a "new moon".
Aheppenh considered that they could be using an Essene calendar. Well, this sounds strange for 394 AD, because I thought the Essenes were a much earlier group. 
But even using different calendars, Aheppenh used a pretty straightfoward calculation to show we couldn't be talking about the Essene calendar: "that calendar begins the month of Nisan around the vernal equinox, which in the fourth century was on or about Mar. 21; the tenth day of the seventh month would then have been around the beginning of October every year." In other words, it's simple to find the spring equinox and count from there.
A_ntv's reply here is pretty confusing for me: "The Essenes calendar had up to seven days (!) of difference to reconcile with the year of 365 days, so also here to take a observational date to determine a calendar day has not significance." I am not sure what he means, because Aheppenh's idea sounds pretty straightforward.
Aheppenh admitted that an unusual group like Jewish Christians might not follow Rabbinical calculations. This is A_ntv's idea and sounds possible. But it doesn't sound like Esbroek was talking about differences in calendars based on differences between Christianity and Judaism.
It makes sense that the Jewish calendar could vary between towns, but John II's sermon was in Jerusalem, and that would be one of the most important and reliable towns for calculating dates.
Suggestions in the Sermon (Inconclusive)
A_ntv pointed out that John II's sermon on this day was about purification through the mercy seat. And that's true, but the sermon was connected with John II's blessing of an actual mercy seat in the church. Now this blessing of the mercy seat, and the sermon about the mercy seat, could have happened on Yom Kippur. But if not, the fact that the occasion for the sermon was the blessing of an actual mercy seat means that there was a good enough reason for this sermon topic, even if the date wasn't Yom Kippur.
It isn't clear what A_ntv means when he points out that John II "makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept) and to a purification made in front of the kaponet (mercy seat)"
Clearly, it does talk about "purification", specifically "purificiation of the lips" in the sermon. But the Wiki article hasn't mentioned any other discussions of "purification" in the sermon, and A_ntv hasn't given any more quotes from the article about "purification". It sounds like A_ntv is saying that the sermon talks about some kind of "purification" in front of a mercy sear, but this is confusing, because he hasn't given a quote or said what exactly he means. For example, is this purification in front of the mercy seat a reference to the "purification of lips", or a different purification? I'm sorry if I'm being too hard, but it sounds unclear.
Plus, a Yom Kippur purification goes beyond just purifying the lips, I assume. it makes sense that purifying the lips is associated with Kippur, but maybe that is not the only thing it is associated with.
One of the most common ancient Christian service, if not the most common one of the 4th century, the Liturgy of St James, says: "blot out my transgressions for Thy compassion's sake; and purify my lips and heart from all pollution of flesh and spirit; and remove from me every shameful and foolish thought, and fit me by the power of Thy all-holy Spirit for this service".
So simply mentioning the purification of lips doesn't necessarily mean a connection to the date of Yom Kippur.
It makes sense that the concept of the purification of the cross could be in an important sermon connected with purification from Yom Kippur, but the Wiki article on John II's sermon doesn't mention any such "purification" of the Cross. And even if there was such a mention, it could be a reference to the fact that the major holiday of the "Exaltation of the Cross" had taken place on September 14. 
Plus, A_ntv's words are unclear about the celebration "not by chance" on Sept. 14: "John II... makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept)". That is, it doesn't sound like John II is saying that purifications from Yom Kippur and the Cross are celebrated on 14 September. Instead, it sounds like maybe A_ntv is just saying that it's not a coincidence that the Celebration of the Cross is on September 14, because September 15 is Yom Kippur, he thinks. 
Now I can see the view that the Celebration of the Cross (Sept. 14) was a festival scheduled around the time of Yom Kippur (around mid-September), because they both involve Atonement. But that doesn't mean that in this particular year the Celebration of the Cross happened to match the date of Yom Kippur.
The Uncertainty of the Year
Aheppenh pointed out that the year is uncertain. The builder of the Church, Theodosius, was Roman Emperor from 379 to January 17, 395. A_ntv said the emperor is described in the sermon as if he was still alive, so it very likely wasn't built in 395, which A_ntv had suggested as possible when he said historians can discuss between 394-395 for this date.
400 AD can't be the date either, which Aheppenh said was possible for matching Yom Kippur with September 15.
This leaves two possibilities based on the limited facts given here: (A)There could have been a miscalculation of Yom Kippur in 392 AD, when the holiday should've been on September 13, and (B) September 15, 389, which Aheppenh said was a better match for Yom Kippur. 
Unfortunately, none of these dates are really certain, because it isn't clear why Esbroek is saying the Theodosius Church was dedicated in 394 AD, instead of another year during Theodosius' rule.
It's confusing what A_ntv meant when he wrote "To pass from 384 to 394 Van Esbrœck makes a reference in a note to this text". It isn't clear why he mentions 384. It's true that earlier A_ntv had mentioned St Chrysostom's sermon in 386 AD, but that's a different year.
A_ntv wrote that this calculation is in a German book Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln, pages 149-183, but that he doesn't have the book or speak German. Well, I don't speak German, and 34 pages is alot to translate, but nonetheless, the book's whole text, including the pages in question, is free online on Google Books as its copyright ended:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sn8TAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
--Rakovsky (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeologist Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra says says 20 Sept. 394 = Yom Kippur 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John II, Bishop of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214211318/http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20130330.htm to http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20130330.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified