[Image] [Hi-Res Image]
Page 162
EQUitins THE NEW BCHAFF-HERZOG 189 Erasmus for the names of the tribes, peoples and city, though ~, modern research has seemed to prove that they had no real existence as persona. While the term epo nym and the conclusions of research it expresses have long been commonplaces in secular history, only comparatively recently have they been applied to Biblical history. Here the critical school alone has applied the term and the idea, e.g., to the patri archs assigned as progenitors of the Hebrew race and of the several tribes. Thus Heber is regarded as an eponym accounting for the Hebrew people, and the same is true of Jacob and Israel and of his twelve sons. The grounds adduced for thus apply ing the method are various. In general, it is as sumed that what is taken as proved for non-Biblical races applies with equal force to the peoples named in the Bible, especially in view of the strong tend ency manifest there to etymologize in explaining the names. In particular, the appearance both in Egyptian and in cuneiform documents of such names as YakoG-el " Jacob is god," Yoseph-el " Joseph is god," the occurrence of such names as Gad and Asher as god-names in non-Hebraic sources, and many similar phenomena have been made the basis for extending to Biblical names the principles of explanation regarded as fixed and satisfactory in secular lines of investigation. It hardly needs to be said that the traditional or conservative school of Biblical interpretation repudiates the methods and the results involved GEO. W. GILMORE. EQUITIUS: An early leader of Western monas ticism. Our knowledge of him is gained from Greg ory the Great, who got his information from per sonal friends. Of his date the only thing known is that he lived in the beginning and middle of the sixth century. He was abbot of several monas teries in the province of Valerie, near the Lago di Fucino in the Sabine Mountains, and ruled also over certain nunneries. The monks busied them selves with agriculture and in copying ancient manuscripts. Although Equitius was a layman, he preached both in churches and in the streets of the towns and villages through which he made missionary journeys. His itinerant activity led to a conflict with the clergy, who induced the pope (Gregory does not name him) to summon Equitius to Rome; but he changed his mind, it is said, as the result .of a terrifying vision-probably in reality through being convinced of the harmlessness of Equitius, who is honored as a saint on Mar. 7. (G. GHtl'rZMACHER.) Btnraooaera:: The single source is Pope Gregory L, Dia· loporum libri quatluor, i., chap. 4, handiest in MPL, Isavii. 147 eqq~ Consult ASB. March, i. 849-851: C. Baronius, Annalea eccl., ad annum 581, nos. 9-12, 12 vole., Rome, 1688-93; E. Spreitaenhofer. Die Entmirklunp des allm bfdnchtuma in ltalicn, Vienna, 1894. ERA: This word (Let. sera and era) denotes a sequence of years reckoned from a definite point of time, wherein every particular year has its fixed position by numerical rotation; and the point of time. from which the era proceeds is termed its epoch. The word is first used by Isidore of Seville (q.v.) in the beginning of the seventh century; and attempts have accordingly been made to derive it from the Gothic. It has been correlated with
the German Jahr and English " year "; but this is not at all certain, and many deem the more probable origin to be from the Latin tt?ra (plural of as in the sense of " counters," " reckoning ").
Among Christian peoples, the era now generally in use is that which has for its epoch the birth of Jesus Christ; that is, the years are reckoned " after the birth of Christ." This era was certainly brought into general use and probably
The was invented by Dionysius Esiguus Christian (q.v.). That is to say, when (in 525) Era. he was making a continuation of the ninety-five year Easter-table of Cyril of Alexandria from its expiration in the year 531 after Christ, he did not designate the separate years of this Easter cycle, as Cyril had done, as so many yearn after the Diocletian persecution, but as so many yearn ab incarnatiorte Domini. He says, " We have been unwilling to connect our cycle with the name of an impious persecutor [Diocletian], but have chosen rather to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." For the first year of his computation, Dionyaius assumed 754 of the City of Rome accord ing to Varro's calculation, following probably some reckoning already known by his age. By incarnatio Domini, however, he understood, con sistently with the phraseology then in vogue, not the birth of Jesus, but his conception; that is, the day of the annunciation to Mary (celebrated on Mar. 25; see ANNUNCIATION, FEAST OF THE). At the same time, he did not begin his era with this day, but with the first of January preceding-in other words, with the beginning of the year as it stood accepted in the calendar of Julius Caesar. Hence " the first of January, 754, of the City of Rome according to Varro," is the epoch of the era of Dionysius. This was afterward misunderstood; incarnatio coming to be identified with natitritas [and Dec. 25 being the accepted day of Christ's birth (see CHRISTMAS)], people supposed that according to the reckoning of Dionysius, Jesus was born on Dec. 25, 753 w.u.c.-as though Dio nysius began his era a week after its proper epoch. Others supposed that Mar. 25, 753, or Dec. 25, 754, was the date of the incarttatio according to Dionysius (cf. the works on chronology, e.g., C. L. Ideler, Handbuoh der matLematischen and teehnischen Chronologie, ii. 381 eqq. Berlin, 1826).Consistently with the practise of making inmrnatio synonymous with nativitas, this era was also designated a natiroitats Domini, post Chriatum natum, or as now quite generally " after the birth of Christ." Other designations are anni eireumciaionie, anni domini swstri Jeeu Christi, anni Christi pratia;, anni grolice, etc.; still again, anni eatutia, anni orbia redernpti, etc. The designation anni tmbaationie was doubtless originally intended to signify so many years after Christ's crucifixion, but is also applied to years after the birth of Christ.
It can not be doubted that Jesus was not born in the year 754 w.u.c. Dionysius, or his-authority, must have been in error. King Herod, who commanded the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16-18) died 750 w.u.o., and Jesus must surely have been born before the death of Herod. But, if we consider the great difficulties of all chronological calculations, and especially the inadequate suxil-