I present some time reckoning systems in the form of columns in the summary table of “The RECOUNTING of TIME” below to illustrate my hypothesis and year calculations above.
The tabular summary assumes that the confusion of AD time occurred in AD725, but it could have happened in any year around AD725. The table can easily be adapted accordingly.
The column AJ (Anno Jesu) indicates the years from the realistic year of Jesus’ birth marked by AJ1.
The years of Exiguus seven years later (7-year error) are given in the column AJE.
The years of the Coptic time reckoning are shown in column AC (Anno Coptic). This column indicates that the Coptic Church was founded in AJ71 aka AJE64 aka 284CE, i.e., 70 years after Jesus’ birth.
The CE column “Recounted new AD” shows the years of the present AD after the omission of the 220-year insertion. For example, the year of Jesus’ birth in this column is 214CE instead of 7BC.
The column on the right-hand side of the table shows that the AD era consists of the following periods:
*Exiguus AJE years, invariant green period (AJ1-AJ512 aka AJE(-6)-AJE505 aka 7BC-AD505),* Incriminated 220 fictive historical years (AD505-AD725),
* Years with incremented serial number
(AD725-AD2022).
I will begin the concluding post of my hypothesis by emphasising what I said at the beginning:
I initially thought it was inconceivable that our time reckoning (calendar year) could be wrong!
I thought that, for my brain training, I would use the “three in one go” method to refute (for my amusement) the three most popular “phantom time theories” I had read.
I have found my refutation successful, but the PROBABILITY has INCREASED that our calendar was off, if not by the 200, 247 and 297 years given in the previous theories, but by the astronomically more possible 220 years!
The astronomical data cited in my hypothesis are from reliable online data of recognised institutions (e.g., NASA) and from programs of experts that have already applied the latest scientific results on the Earth’s non-uniform rotation rate. The programs cited work with ΔT values for the long past based on Morrison and Stephenson’s scientific paper published in 2004 or later ΔT calculations that differ only slightly.
Assuming (or even allowing) that the ΔT values were inaccurate and would change due to reducing the temporal distance of certain events by 220 years, only the hour-minute values would change. The essence of my hypothesis would remain valid. I find that the change in Delta T has little effect on the geographical location where the rare solar eclipses can be observed. In contrast, a change in Delta T would modify the site where more frequent lunar eclipses can be observed.
As additional quasi-proof of my hypothesis, I quote below some sentences from the abstract of a paper on dendrochronological scientific research, which, in a completely different approach, led to a very similar result to mine:
“We have then found a distinct correlation between recent Danish and Norwegian oak curves, and supra-long pine curves from 13 northern Scandinavia. Moreover we have found a distinct correlation between a long north-west European oak curve anchored 14 archaeologically in Roman time, and the Scandinavian pine curves, but 218 years later than expected. There is no correlation at or 15 near to the expected point of match. To resolve this problem, more data – still not available – would need to be analyzed, but from a dendrochronological point of view 18 we can not exclude the possibility that Roman time is conventionally dated too old by more than 200 years.”
(Dendrochronological dating of Roman time, draft, 2014‐04‐18, Page 2 of 37 16 17. 3 Petra Ossowski Larsson* and Lars-Åke Larsson, Sweden 4 * Corresponding author: petra@cybis.se)
I am sure the question has been raised in the mind of the dear reader: if the time reckoning is messed up indeed, why did they mess up it?
For my part, I can think of several different reasons (e.g., religious, superstitious, power, economic, etc. considerations). But to find out the real reason would require a deep knowledge of the history of the Roman Church. However, answering this question is, in my opinion, irrelevant until experts have thoroughly analysed and proven (if scientifically provable) whether 220 years of fictitious history have been inserted indeed.
With this last sentence, I also prepared the following one. I know: my reasoning is not sufficient proof that the AD chronology has been confused. However, I hope my writing is enough to make some bold experts ponder the astronomical facts.
I am aware that all these astronomical fits could, in principle, also be a whimsical play of “chance” by the periodicity of the phenomena. In addition to the ones I have raised, I merely propose re-examining the astronomical appropriateness of other historical data using scientific methods!
Hence, my new hypothesis is a WORK-HYPOTHESIS (I want to give work to researchers), and I only state the following:
The new historical dates calculated in my scenario
seem fit "by the stars" better with
early historical texts, legends and the Gospels
than the current, scientifically accepted datings.
Of course, even so, I cannot be sure that our time has been messed up. The confusion of AD Time remains a conjecture that would require a tremendous amount of work to prove.
I am aware that I have not written a scientific dissertation and am an “outsider” in the relevant scientific fields. So, my hypothesis is “negligible” in scientific circles.
I would therefore be particularly pleased if the authorities in the fields of history and chronology would be willing to confront me with my arguments. I would particularly welcome it if I could accept professional objections to the details. I would, of course, also bow to a complete rejection of my hypothesis, backed up by scientific arguments.
To return to the famous quote by Niels Bohr, which I distorted in the introduction, I will put a further twist on it:
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”OF THE PAST.
I enjoyed inventing my astronomical speculation above, but I see it as a “playful thought experiment”. Maybe it is only an amateur “thought-provocation” to amuse some experts.
However, I hope the dear reader has enjoyed my game, too.
“Three is the right number” (of Magyar’s truth), says the old Hungarian proverb. So, I will briefly list the three main elements of the present hypothesis showing new ideas compared to previous theories.
The present hypothesis examines the length of the historical period whose insertion is astronomically barely detectable so that its insertion is not only theoretically but also practically feasible.
The present hypothesis is thinking
not only in the "stretching" of a historical period
but also in the "quasi-automatic shrinking"
of an earlier historical period.
The present hypothesis explains
why "no confusion" occurred at the parallel,
earlier Seleucid, and the later Coptic and Islam time reckoning,
despite the confusion of our AD time.
How is it possible to insert 220 years into history in practice?
As I indicated earlier, I have found a solution to the issue of how to fit 220 years into the 200-year interval of the significant years of Exiguus and Bede (in between Exiguus’ AD525 and Bede’s AD725).
Of course, the following solution is a figment of my imagination or, I could say, fiction within my historical fiction. But it is feasible to implement.
Here is one imaginary but numerically possible solution, which I call TWIN-TRICK.
I suppose that the news about Bede’s extensive knowledge of computus and astronomy, and thus of his idea to build a “time bridge” by Easter tables, reached Rome.
For simplicity’s sake, as a first approximation, let us assume that both Exiguus and Bede happened to work in AD512.
They were contemporaries, “intellectual twins”. They put their heads together and determined by the inclusive calculation that they lived 512 years after Jesus was born, in Anno Jesu 512, short AJ512. Similarly, today we would say that if the year of Jesus’ birth is marked AJ1, then the year of the “twins” was AJ1+511 = AJ512 because 511 years have elapsed according to our current exclusive calculation.
The “twins” also realised that they could imagine themselves backwards and forwards in time along the years of the Easter tables. They invented “medieval time travel”. For some reason, as yet unknown to me, but which I hope can be fathomed by knowledgeable religious historians, the Roman Pontiff wanted to make the history of Christianity appear to be much older than the years it went back. (I can think of several reasons for this, but they are all fiction.) The Pope was caught by the possibility of historical “time travel”. He commissioned the “twins” to transfer back the years of Jesus’ life, some 200 years! So, the twins were not acting “on their beard”. They should go forth with the knowledge and even the mandate of the Roman Church to carry out their task. To carry out such a momentous “time travel” (in my view), a strong and long-reigning Pope was needed. During the life of Bede, the ambitious Gregory II was Pope for more than 15 years!
Following the principle of “Occam’s razor”, I will not overcomplicate things at first approximation. Let’s see what I think is the most straightforward solving procedure for period insertion.
The “twins” have analysed the Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, the Jewish calendar and the Metonic cycle. Because of the 20-year cycle time of the J-S conjunctions, they moved backwards in time in 20-year increments. They concluded that 220 years would satisfy the boundary condition of the J-S conjunction and the Jewish calendar and would even satisfy the Metonic cycle with a retrospectively hardly recognisable error of precisely one astronomical day.
They realised as I did that only 220 years could be inserted on an astronomical basis. Two hundred twenty years is the only period that meets the obvious “hard to recognise” criterion.
Accordingly, the twins first inserted 220 fictitious years before their actual year. This retrospective insertion increased the time gap between Jesus’ birth year and the twins’ running year from 511 to 731 years so that they temporarily could write AJ732.
The twins decided to hide this jump forwards, the insertion of 220 years.
Therefore, in the second step, Exiguus was placed back by 200 years in AJ532. His time distance from Jesus’ birth year decreased to “only” 531 years, but Bede’s time distance remained 731 years, 200 years more. If two famous monks live 200 years apart, then 220 years of insertion in this period seems impossible, they thought.
Then the “time travellers” slapped their foreheads and found their trick was not yet hidden enough!
So Exiguus was given the task of calculating his new time distance from the year of Jesus’ birth, but in the “opposite direction” to the previous time offset! This is why Exiguus put the year of Jesus’ birth, the origo of the time reckoning, seven years later than it happened, and it caused the “7 years error” and made Jesus 7 years younger.
Because of the seven-year jump forwards, Exiguus’ apparent final year difference from the “new virtual year” of Jesus’ birth was reduced from 531 years to 524 years. Jesus’ birth year was renamed AD1, so Exiguus found himself in the year of AD1+524 = AD525, which is still the same today, and we called it “Exuguus’ year”!
Similarly, the year distance of 220 years added to the year of Bede (as the first step) was reduced by 7, too, so that the year AD725 became “Bede’s year”.
This way, the twins have “double hidden” Jesus’s original birth year and double hidden the insertion of the 220 years.
Bede later retroactively compiled his fake Easter tables to fill up the inserted gap before his own time by his “virtual year calendar”.
The seven-year shift forwards put Jesus’ original birth year seven years after BC7, into AD1, which took about 1800 years to discover (by Ágoston Teres).
No wonder. It did not fit into history!
The “7-year error” was, I guess, a deliberate “stunt”. But of course, these seven years do not affect the year-distance between known historical events. “Only” Jesus was born seemingly in a later year of the reign of Emperor Augustus, as we have been led to believe for many centuries. That is why applying the “7-year error” was a strategic decision; it “hid” the 220-year insertion! After all, the year of Jesus’ birth was virtually transformed back only by213 years (from 214CE to AD1), making it more challenging to decipher the 220-year insertion. The AD1 was false by the “7-year error” even compared to the 220-year insertion. Because of these “shifts” in two opposite directions, I feel justified in using the word “confusion”.
It is relatively easy to come up with more “twisted solutions”.
For example, it is also possible that Exiguus was merely a monk invented by Bede. Bede sent quasi “himself” back 200 years earlier under the name of “his twin” monk, Exiguus.
However, the above “solutions” presuppose the twins’ ” initiation “, or at least that of Bede.
Let us not forget that Bede lived in England, far from Rome, from where the Western Roman Empire “fled” long before its final fall, i.e., before 696CE aka AD476. Bede was, moreover, a scholar living in monastic isolation.
It is conceivable that the information supplied to him about Exiguus’ calculations was already antedated as if it were 200 years older. So, Bede could have been a “misled scientist” who did not even know why he had to compile backdated Easter tables!
In this case, of course, the 20 years of Exiguus had to be inserted somewhat before the “Exiguus’ year.”
This can also be “enhanced”:
The insertion before the years of Exiguus could have happened even much earlier, e.g., 20 years earlier. In this case, there would be 20 years of really happened history between the 20-year and 200-year insertions.
Earlier historians filled up the artificial time gap with fictive historical events.
My fingers are crossed for the historians of the present time.
Summarised with formulas:
In the new CE system, Jesus's original birth year,
AJ1 (Anno Jesu) was shifted to xCE.
The formula for “x” is the 2-step "procedure",
starting from AD512 = AJ512 (511 elapsed years):
x = (512-511) +220-7 = 1+213 = 214
Therefore, the formula for AJ1 in the new CE system,
based on Bede's year and the really elapsed 511 years:
AJ1 = 725CE-511 = 214CE
Jesus’ original birth year in the AD system:
AJ1-220 = 214CE-220 = AD(-6) = BC7
Jesus' current AD1 year transformed in three steps:
AJ1-(20+200-7) = 214CE -213 = AD1
Exiguus’ year in the AD system today:
AJ512 +20-7 = 525CE = AD525
Bede’s year in the AD system today:
AJ512 +220-7 = 725CE = AD725
The picture on the left shows the “protagonists” of the First Council of Nicaea (AD325), Pope Sylvester I. and Constantine I. (the Great), the first Roman emperor to be baptised.
Twelve years earlier, Constantine the Great had enacted the “Edict of Milan”, which accepted Christianity with state benevolence in the Roman Empire.
By the time of the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman Church had long been aware of the flaw in the Julian calendar that VEQ day was consistently moved back one day every 128 years. This coincided with the fact that Christians had long wanted to move away from the old Jewish Passover method of calculating the Easter date.
To make the VEQ day clear for Easter date calculation (computus), the synod formally fixed the date of VEQ day by church decree to 21 March, thus making it independent of the actual astronomical date. (It was gradually introduced after the year of the synod, the exact timetable for its introduction is unknown.)
The synod could have chosen any day near 21 March, but the Church does not choose arbitrarily, and the Church usually decides according to its own traditions. Even when they informally set VEQ Day, they probably chose a date they calculated as VEQ Day in the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.
The year of the synod as adopted today is AD325.
In AD325, the date of VEQ is 20 March, 13:50.
This is when the VEQ fell in Rome for a long time (AD308-AD347) on 20 March.
Looking back from the year AD325, the Church would also have seen that the day of VEQ should have originally fallen on 22-23 March, around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.
It is, therefore, logical to assume that in AD325:
– the Church (probably following its own tradition) either set the VEQ on 22 March, since around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion (AD20-AD50), the VEQ fell predominantly on 22 March. (In AD33 and AD36, the VEQ fell on 22 March, and it has continued to shift towards the stable on 22 March);
– or perhaps the synod would have set the VEQ day for AD325 as 20 March, since in the years around AD325, the VEQ day fell decades-long on 20 March, as seen above.
This means that AD325 is out of the question,
as the year of the First Council of Nicaea, because in AD325, the synod would hardly have chosen 21 March as the official VEQ day.
After transforming AD325 two-hundred-twenty years closer to us, we come to 545CE, the new year of the Council of Nicaea.
In 545CE, the VEQ was pushed back to 18 March, 20:29.
Around 545CE, VEQ fell every two years, alternately on 18 or 19 March.
Accordingly, it is logical to assume that in 545CE:
– following the church tradition, the synod probably would have fixed VEQ day on 20 or 21 March, since around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion, 256CE, VEQ fell every two years alternately on 20 or 21 March. Probably they counted back to 256CE and found with a small error that VEQ fell on 21 March that year.
– or perhaps the synod could have fixed the VEQ day on 18 March because of the accumulated error in the Julian calendar for AD545, since in the years around AD545, the dominance of 18 March as VEQ day was imminent.
Bishops and prelates usually decide
to follow the traditions of the Roman Church,
and this may have been the case in Nicaea, too!
The Roman Church may have known that VEQ was initially on 21 March in the Julian calendar. This knowledge may also influence their decision for 21 March as a formal VEQ day for computus.
The consequence: the date fixing by the church has made it possible to produce Easter tables connected loosely to astronomical reality! The fixing of the VEQ date for 21 March made it easier for Beda to compile retroactively false Easter tables since Beda's hands were not tightly bound by the actual date of the astronomical VEQ day.
The First Council of Nicaea had not yet considered a calendar reform. Formalising the VEQ day was much easier than a hasty calendar reform would have been.
Setting the VEQ date to 21 March solved the issue of calculating the Easter date created by the backsliding of the VEQ date in the Julian calendar. The fixing of the VEQ day kept Easter as a movable holiday but also separated it from the “Jewish Passover” (which was strictly linked to the astronomical VEQ).
Conclusion:The Church's decision to set the VEQ Day on 21 March
means to me that the 220-year-later 545CE is more appropriate
as the year of the First Council of Nicaea than AD325.
Historians accept that the Coptic Orthodox Christian calendar began on 29 August AD284, commemorating the cruel Christian persecution of Emperor Diocletian. AD284 corresponds to the Coptic1 year.
Another name for the Coptic calendar is “The calendar of martyrs”. Years of the Coptic time are designated A.M., the abbreviation for “Anno Martyrum”, Year of the Martyrs. (Coptic1 = A.M.1)
Emperor Diocletian ascended the throne on 20 November 284, the first full year of his reign being AD285.
Because of the difference in the starting dates of the Julian and Coptic years:
“The Coptic year is calculated by subtracting 283 (before Julian New Year) or 284 (after) from the Julian calendar year.” So, during 2017, we can write Coptic 1734 and 1733, depending on which month we consider. (e.g., 2017-283 = 1774)
Historians have entirely ignored the fact that, according to Coptic tradition, the Coptic Church was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist and martyr.
By the reign of Diocletian, the Coptic Church was already strong, had churches, bishoprics, and at least 20% of Egyptians were Coptic Christians!
Let us assume the legend that Saint Mark founded the Coptic Church may be true.
Why would the Copts start a new time reckoning in AD284?
Why was the Coptic time reckoning calculated from Diocletian's first year?
How did the year Coptic1 alias A.M.1 come to be
more than two centuries away from the time of Jesus?
The foundation of the Coptic Church must have been centuries earlier, much closer to the time of Jesus Christ, because St. Mark lived at the time of Jesus, although he was somewhat younger.
However, as far as I know, there is no historical evidence or legend for the restart of the Coptic calendar in AD284. Therefore, the founding of the Coptic Church and the start of the Coptic calendar may have occurred indeed in AD284.
That is why the opposite assumption might be considered, too. Jesus’ life could have happened much later than accepted today, much closer to the foundation of the Coptic Church, too!
It is known that Emperor Diocletian was a close relative and contemporary of Pope Caius. It is also known that after coming to power, Diocletian explicitly supported Christians and the Christian religion, then (allegedly) turned against them 19 years later. In contrast, years earlier, he had persecuted Christianity’s main rival religion, Manichaeism.
In AD284, Diocletian was not yet persecuting Christians. The Copts could not have founded their church in AD284 to commemorate Diocletian’s martyrs since Diocletian’s persecution of Christians began only 19 years later, in AD303. The foundation of the Coptic Church could hardly have been based on the title of Erich von Däniken’s “Memories of the Future”.
(I guess that the extent of the persecution of Christians towards the end of Diocletian’s reign has been exaggerated by historiography. These persecutions of Christians can be associated mainly with Galerius and not with Diocletian and were primarily confined to specific areas in Nicomedia (Asia Minor), and Antioch (Anatolia). The persecutions did not or only slightly extended to Egypt and did not virtually affect Coptic Christians.)
Therefore, it seems unlikely, unreasonable, and even more incomprehensible that the “martyrs’ era”, i.e., the Coptic time reckoning (calendar year calculation), would have begun from the first year of Diocletian’s reign.
All this is a striking historical contradiction. This is the “Coptic Paradox” mentioned in the “Introduction” as my first historical guess for 220-year insertion. In my opinion, the resolution of this paradox is the following.
According to his own Gospel, St Mark was still a child when Jesus was crucified, and let us assume he must have been 14 years old.
In this case, the year of Mark’s birth, according to our calculations, is 242CE because we calculated the year of Jesus’ crucifixion as 256CE. So, Mark would have been about 42 years old at the foundation of the Coptic Church in AD284, and it is a realistic age for the founder of a Church.
Mark speaks (in his Gospel) in past tense about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (placed now in AD70). So, he was martyred in Alexandria somewhat later, most likely in AD72, at about 50. This year corresponds to AD292, so he survived the church’s foundation by eight years.
(If the year of Mark’s birth or death differed by a few years from the one we have now calculated, this would not affect the rest of our calculations.)
At the heart of our calculation is the observation that the Coptic Church, the Church of the Martyrs, does not commemorate the martyrs of Diocletian. As we know today, St. Peter and probably St. Paul were executed by the mad Emperor Nero in Rome in the summer of AD64. AD64 + 220 = AD284. Consequently, Nero's massacre took place 220 years later, in 284CE. So, the Coptic Church remembers the martyrs of Emperor Nero! And Diocletian became emperor in 504CE, 220 years later than AD284.
By the time of Nero’s massacre, St. Mark, on a personal mission from St. Peter, had already sailed from Rome to Alexandria, where, on news of Nero’s massacres, he had founded the local Coptic church.
Saint Mark dedicated his Coptic Church
first of all, to the memory of Saint Peter.
The Coptic Church had wholly separated from the Roman Church as early as AD451, and they did not cooperate for centuries. (In the current hypothesis, this separation occurred 220 years later, 671CE). Egypt had already come under Arab/Islamic rule in the first half of the 7th century. Therefore, if our time reckoning was subsequently messed up, it certainly did not affect the Coptic time reckoning and calendar!
It can be said that the Coptic time reckoning is independent of the AD time reckoning and is not confused. The Coptic Church, founded by St Mark, began in AD 284. The Coptic1 (A.M.1) is a fixed reference year in history.
It is written in the gospels that Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem during the tenure of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea.
According to historians, Pilate’s years in the office started in January AD26 and finished in December AD36. The years AD26 and AD36 fall full within this office time. (inclusive calculation)
For the time of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, today AD33 is the more accepted year, but AD36 is also partly accepted, as we have written earlier.
Let’s transform Pilate’s years in office 220 years forwards!
AD26 becomes 246CE and AD36 becomes 256CE.
According to the back-calculated Jewish calendar, in the interval 246CE – 256CE, only in 256CE does Nisan 14 fall on Friday.
Therefore, the most likely new dateof the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is:28 March 256CE.This date corresponds to Friday, Nisan 14 4016, in the Jewish calendar.
According to the above statement: Jesus was crucified shortly after his 42nd birthdaysince he was born on 6 January 214CE.
At the crucifixion, Jesus’ age of 42-43 is acceptable because it does not contradict some of the apocryphal gospels.
The above date of 256CE corresponds, backwards transformed by 220 years, to 30 March AD36 or 3796 Nisan 14 Friday.
Putting the year of Jesus’ crucifixion to AD33 is a back-transformation by 223 years instead of 220 years on the timeline. (256CE back to AD33)
Where can this 3-year difference come from?
Three of the Gospels report that after Jesus’ crucifixion, there was a full moon in the late afternoon and a long period of darkness, too.
There could not have been a solar eclipse because, for astronomical reasons, a solar eclipse is only possible on a new moon, and a dark solar eclipse can last only for a few minutes. (As we have already seen at the solar eclipse of Emperor Augustus.)
On 30 March AD36, there was a full moon in Jerusalem, but there was no lunar eclipse at any time close to this date.
On 3 April AD33, there was indeed a full moon and a partial lunar eclipse, but, as we calculate now, this eclipse was not visible from Jerusalem.
On the night of 28 March 256CE, a total full moon was well visible from Jerusalem. There was indeed a total lunar eclipse on this day on far East. However, at today’s accepted value of Delta T, this was also not visible from Jerusalem. If Delta T had been closer to zero around that year (as it has been consistently for the last 400 years), this eclipse would still not have been visible from Jerusalem.
The lunar eclipses of 33 AD and 256CE are shown in the following map calculation by NASA expert Fred Espenak:
(Comment: The above lunar eclipse would have been visible from Jerusalem on 28 March 256CE if the Delta T value had been around minus 9000 sec. According to our present knowledge, this enormous negative Delta T value is unlikely. There can hardly be such a significant error in the retrospective interpolation of Delta T because that would require the Earth’s rotation to be slightly accelerating, even though we know it to be somewhat decelerating today.)
The possibility arises that the researchers put the date of Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday, 3 April AD33 (3793 Nisan 14) because they were looking for an astronomically based darkness around this year. They did not know what caused the darkness but suspected a lunar eclipse. However, the lunar eclipses were inaccurately counted back at the insertion of 220 years, and a false lunar eclipse or, more accurately, “darkness tradition” was built on the inaccurate result…
The literature suggests that other natural phenomena, such as a dust cloud or a distant cloud of volcanic soot, may have caused the darkness.
Perhaps, the legend of the long darkness is only a nice metaphor, and it could be an afterthought to show a heavenly sign and underline the horror of Jesus’ crucifixion.
Post summary
Today's accepted date of the crucifixion of Jesus:
Data accepted as primary: No. 1: (223 years earlier)Date of crucifixion: 3 April AD33
Friday, Nisan 14, 3793.
Full Moon: 3 Apr AD33, 100%
The lunar eclipse occurred in the far East,
However, only perhaps faintly visible from Jerusalem.
Partly accepted data: no. 2: (220 years earlier)
(Partially accepted due to the missing lunar eclipse.)
30 March AD36;
Friday, Nisan 14, 3796.
Full Moon: 30 March AD36, 100% Lunar eclipse:There were no lunar eclipses near this date.The proposed new data: Date of Crucifixion: 28 March 256CE;
Friday, Nisan 14, 4016.
Full Moon:28 March 256CE 18:33; LT Jerusalem, 100%;
Total lunar eclipse: 28 Mar 256CE 13:21 UTNot visible from Jerusalem at today's value of Delta T.A dark cloud could cover this rising full moon for a longer time.
See the full moon rise on 28 March 256CE in the Stellarium “photo” below:
Rising Full Moon in Jerusalem on 28 March 256CE, at 18H33 LMST. Stellarium Photo
The above results show that it is astronomically and calendrically possible to shift the date of the crucifixion backwards by 223 years. It is virtually a little “confusion” in the conception of the general 220-year backshift. However, do not forget that AD33 was not a generally accepted year, either. If the year AD36 had been taken earlier, our result would have been a backshift by 220 years. So, this 3-year discrepancy helps somewhat cover up the insertion of 220 years.
According to legends and to Eusebius (a great historian from Caesarea who lived relatively close to the time of Augustus), the emperor’s death was “foretold” shortly before by a solar eclipse.
For us today, Emperor Augustus died on 19 August AD14.
This date is one of the milestones of the modern historical chronology. However, there was no solar eclipse in Italy near AD14 at all! This fact indicates that AD14 can hardly be considered the year of Emperor Augustus' death.
Let us see what astronomy tells us about the year 220 years later.
The 220-years forwards transformed year of Augustus’ death is the 234CE. Just nine weeks before 19 August 234CE, on 14 June 234CE, there was a powerful partial annular solar eclipse crossing the Apenninepeninsula.
This solar eclipse was well-visible at sunrise from Rome and Nola near Naples, where Augustus died. The eclipse lasted for a very long time, and such long-time solar eclipses infrequently occur, so it was sure memorised commonly.
Solar eclipse at sunrise in Nola; obscuration: 84%. Stellarium photos of the blogger.
This eclipse was indeed symbolic:
The Moon, the symbol of the weaker deity Diana, slowly overtook the Sun and “prevented the rising” of the Sun, the symbol of the greater god Sol, for more than 3.5 minutes!
Afterwards, this eclipse remained very well observable for further 58 minutes.
The Sun also symbolised the divine emperor Augustus who was “defeated” by the disease, symbolized by the minor deity, the Moon!
Do not miss seeing the video clip of this beautiful solar eclipse:
Sun and Moon moved together long in the morning sky. Clip made by the blogger using Stellarium photos.
Our suggested
new date of the death of Emperor Augustus is
19 August 234CE.
Of course, the symbolic connection between a given solar eclipse and the death of somebody can only be created shortly after the death of the given person. A solar eclipse would hardly have been invented after the fact if the eclipse had not taken place indeed somewhat before Augustus’ death. It seems likely that such a particularly long solar eclipse in connection with the death of the emperor Augustus is not without reason preserved in the general social memory and ancient literature.
The astronomical fact of the presented
Solar Eclipse in 234CE in Rome and Nola
and its use as a symbol are essential indications that
220 years of fictive historical events are
embedded indeed in history and AD time reckoning.
We have seen that Jesus was not born on 25 December. The Roman Church made 25 Dec the day of his birth centuries later. Teres placed the year of Jesus’ birth on 7BC, between the first census of Emperor Augustus (8BC-7BC) and the date of the death of Herod the Great (spring 4BC).
In this short period, Teres identified the great Jupiter-Saturn conjunction based on Kepler’s conjecture and the legend of the Star of Bethlehem.
Unfortunately, we have no concrete historical data, so we can only start from these legends.
Furthermore, it is told that “three kings” came from the Orient to pay homage to the Child according to an older prophecy and guidance by the stars. Today we know that the three kings were neither kings of Eastern kingdoms nor rulers but wise men from the Orient. They were sages, “magi”, who knew astronomy and astrology. Today, we would say they were astronomers and astrologers, two closely intertwined disciplines at the time.
It is an essential fact that in ancient times Jupiter was the “king star”, the “star of the lord of the world”, the symbol of the supreme deity in Mesopotamia, Rome and the ancient Greeks, too, under the name Zeus.
Saturn (Kewan) is the Sabbath planet, a reference to Judaism.
The keywords in the “Three Kings legend of Bethlehem” are the number 3, star, infant, and king; these words may form the basis of the “retrofitted tradition”.
In short, the currently accepted view is that Jesus was born after the “Jupiter-Saturn conjunction” in 7BC.
It is known that there were three J-S conjunctions in 7BC (-6), which is an infrequent phenomenon. In fact (verified with the Stellarium sky simulator program), the October conjunction as a “near position” started in March in the eastern sky and was completed in late February of the following year in the western sky. This image wandered across the sky as a “guiding star” from East to West every night for several months.
In BC7, Jupiter and Saturnalmost overlapped in the sky three times.The keyword "three" appeared!Let's look at what happened 220 years later.
By transforming the years 8BC-7BC (Augustus’ census no. 1.) 220 years forward, we arrive at 213CE-214CE. The new date of Herod’s death brought forward 220 years is the spring of 217CE.
We would come closer to justifying our theory if we could identify the time of Jesus’ birth within this period, i.e. between the end of 213CE and the spring of 217CE, while retaining the statements of the legends, their essence and keywords.
Two hundred nineteen years later, in 213CE, there was also Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on 11 October in Virgo. (11 October is now in Libra due to precession.)
The Jupiter-Saturn close position began in August 213CE and lasted for one year in the western sky, extending into 214CE. (The cycle time of Jupiter Saturn conjunctions is a little shorter than 20 years, 19.86 years.)
Let’s look at the table of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions for the entire period in question.
This conjunction in 213CE moved across the sky as a “guiding star” each night from East to West, like in BC7. You can see the “rising” conjunction in the Stellarium photo below.
The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on 11 October 213CE, as seen from Baghdad, the direction from which, according to legend, the “magi” set out to the West. The conjunction is visible at the left elbow of Virgo. Above left, the same can be seen at high magnification, photo by Stellarium.
The sages saw what we also see in the retrospective planetary simulation. They could see that Mars had just passed through the constellation Leo. They also knew what celestial event was about to happen! Let’s have a look at what happened in the sky!
As early as 15 December 213CE, Mars moved closer to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. A “triple alignment” became visible (as seen from the city of Tiberias, on the way from Baghdad to Nazareth). Photo by Stellarium.
The peculiarity of this co-position is that from mid-December 213CE, Mars also gradually turned in a “slight arc” from Leo to Jupiter-Saturn, forming a very rare “close trine”.
The keyword number 3 of the “three kings” appeared! Such extraordinary triple conjunction of the three planets occurs about every eight hundred years.
The Jupiter-Saturn-Mars close alignment happened in the sign of Virgo. The constellation of Virgo symbolised the virginity of Jesus’ mother, Mary.
The planet Mars has traditionally been a symbol of the “community leader” (e.g., a war leader and therefore also the war, but a religious leader, too.).
As the Stellarium photo above shows, the orbital direction of Mars’ motion was from the brightest star in the sign of Leo, Alpha Leonis, towards the Jupiter-Saturn pair.
The ancient name for Alfa Leonis, still in use today, is REGULUS, which means little king, little prince. The “infant king” keyword combination appeared, too.
At dawn on 6 January 214CE, the extraordinary triple conjunction was almost in the centre of the Nazareth celestial dome, and Mars was aligned nearest to Jupiter-Saturn. Mars, as seen from Earth, sometimes makes retrograde motions that loop. At this point, Mars stopped and soon moved away from the Jupiter-Saturn pair again.
The celestial stopping of Mars symbolised for the "wise men of the East" that they had arrived at the birthplace of Jesus.
This is shown in the following Stellarium photo.
The triple conjunction was completed on 6 January AD214 over Nazareth, when the three planets came closest together. Stellarium photo.
Let us see the clip of how Mars joined the Jupiter Saturn conjunction and how the 3 planets crossed the sky:
Wandering of the “guiding stars” in the sky as seen from Nazareth between 1 October 213CE and 10 January 214CE
In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that these “3 bright stars”, the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are the “Star of Bethlehem”. Therefore, this celestial phenomenon could be the origin of the “Legend of the Three Kings from the East”.
This results in the
new date of Jesus' birth 6 January AD214,
the day of today's Feast of the Epiphany.
It became understandable why the early Christians originally celebrated Jesus’ birthday on Epiphany (Epiphania Domini).Orthodox and Coptic Christians still celebrate Jesus’ birthday, Christmas on 6 January.
We have seen that a period of 220-years can be inserted while retaining or, better to say, finding the keywords of the “three kings” legend again.
Comment:
Despite the astronomical correspondences above, likely, we shall never know the actual date of Jesus’ birth. It is possible that the Bethlehem legend of the three kings in Matthew’s Gospel, the only source, is an afterthought. However, since it was a well-known legend, it had to be considered in making the “confusion” of post-Christus chronology. Since it is only a legend, it remains uncertain whether the date of Jesus’ birth is related to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction or whether it is merely Kepler’s conjecture.
Let’s explore what the assumed sun and sunlight spectacle might have looked like on the coincided AEQ day and birthday of Emperor Augustus, 23 September 212CE and the years after!
Imagine the selected direction of the Obelisk’s shadow, pointing straight towards the centre of the western entrance to Ara Pacis. This “highlighted shadow direction” is created every day of every year but results in obelisk shadows of different lengths. For the known (accepted) topology and geometry of the obelisk and Ara Pacis, this highlighted shadow direction occurs at the azimuth angle of 251.72° of the Sun.
This shadow direction occurs at slightly different minutes and seconds when calculated for other AEQ days of other years. Still, it is unimportant precisely at what date and time it happens on a particular AEQ day. However, it is essential that on the AEQ day of any year, a very close value of solar altitude belongs to this solar azimuth. The range of the sun’s altitude is 18.9° – 19.5°.So, the length of the shadow of the 29,6m high (height of the centre of the sphere) obelisk in this direction varies only between 83.58m and 86.45m on AEQ days of the examined period.
Furthermore,both western (external and internal) upward ascending stairs of Ara Pacis virtually “break the shadow” cast on them. The shadow appears shorter than it would on a horizontal surface. The stairs “compensate by length compression” the length-changings of the shadow on the different AEQ days!
In my opinion, these simple astronomical rules were also recognised by ancient astronomers and applied to the design of the HAAP complex.
Knowing these data, both the static and dynamic “behaviour” of the shadow can be modelled with considerable accuracy for any given year, using the astronomical data of any other year. The slight difference between the shadow lengths of the model year and those of an old year could be corrected using Stellarium data.
However, as we show soon, we don’t need a numerically accurate model for a qualitative analysis of the spectacle. (Especially because the accepted topological and geometrical data might also be somewhat uncertain.)
The ArchiCADTM 3D model:
I have examined the 3D shadow modelling accuracy of ArchiCADTM. ArchiCAD is a Hungarian architectural design and modelling software application of Graphisoft SE. In architecture, no exactness in an astronomical sense is expected for shadows. ArchiCAD allows the qualitative visual shadow analysis of old astronomical AEQ phenomena by using data from today’s AEQ. ArchiCAD calculates with atmospheric refraction and optical atmospheric diffraction of sunlight by the built-in MAXON CineRender, and these are important for qualitative light-shadow analysis.
Based on topological and geometrical data from recent research (Prof. Bernard Frischer et al.), I built an accurate ArchiCAD3D model of the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis building complex at M = 1:1.
Bird view of Obelisk Augustae and Ara Pacis. After the shadow of the gilded sphere left the red EQL, It is cast on the southern part of the external steps of Ara Pacis.
Let us first look at the movement of the shadow cast by the obelisk from morning to evening on the AEQ day, 23 September 2022. The length of the draft shadow of the obelisk is about the average size calculated astronomically. The clips show that the shadow of the gilded sphere moves along the red EQL and goes from about the middle of the external lowest stair to the south sidewall of the western entrance of Ara Pacis.
I examined the maximal shadow length which might penetrate the inside stairs of Ara Pacis, too. The southern edge of the western entrance (portal corner) is the worst-case regarding entering the shadow to the inside of Ara Pacis.
The following draft picture shows the longest possible shadow of the obelisk to this southern edge of the western entrance on any AEQ day.
The obelisk’s longest possible “enterable” (portal-corner) shadow on any AEQ day of the examined periods. Exact calculation of the shadow, cast by point like Sun. Draft “Home rendering”. Portal-corner Sun azimuth 252,7°; lowest Sun altitude 17,9°.
Conclusions of the analysis of the 3D model:
I have analysed (not given details here) the light-shadow relationships of the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis complex and made the following observations.
– Even the longest shadow could never (neither in 9BC nor in the two millennia since) be cast on the west sidewall of the altar table on the AEQ day and on the day after the AEQ day (despite changes in the shadow length).
– Let’s look at the obelisk’s shadow to the “highlighted direction” modelled with the quasi-longest shadow of 23 September, AD2022. This picture represents the shadow length. It is rendered by MAXXON with the Sun as a point-like lights source. The MAXXON algorithm gives a somewhat longer shadow than the worst-case calculation based on Stellarium.
The above longest shadow again, as cast by a point-like Sun. Rendered by MAXXON. MAXXON calculates with somewhat longer shadows than the astronomical worst case.
–A visible shadow of the sphere did not even reach the outside steps on the day of the AEQ. This is because the sphere’s shadow became practically “dead” at this distance! The solar disk encircled the gilded sphere, and its shadow became a completely “lifeless” dimmed, almost invisible penumbra. Standing in front of Ara Pacis in the shadow of the sphere, it was hard to realize the shading effect of the shadow, the own shadow of the observer remained virtually unchanged. Because the differences in the shadow length are minor and because of the unsharp penumbra, the results of the 3D model can be considered qualitatively correct. Look at the photorealistic, scattered penumbra of the obelisk and the spherein the next photo. The photorealistic picture was taken in very bright sunlight to highlight the shadow. The sphere’s slow-moving shadow virtually could not be seen at all.
The above longest shadow is calculated by MAXXON Cinerender with the real Sun. Photorealistic penumbral shadow. The Shadow of the gilt sphere disappears.
I am convinced that ancient astronomers knew these attributes of shadows, too.
That is why I guess that the relative position of the two buildings and the sphere were deliberately sized so that the sphere’s shadow would “fade and disappear” on astronomical AEQ days when it would have reached the western outer stairs of Ara Pacis.
– Furthermore, the gilded sphere did only partly obscure the Sun. This covering caused an “artificial annular (ring-shaped) solar eclipse” to such an extent that it at least helped to look towards the Sun. The artificial annular solar eclipse generates an umbra (dark shaded core part), a penumbra (partially shaded part on the sides of the umbra) and an antumbra, a lighter shaded part of the shadow beyond the core umbral part. An antumbra seems to be a light spot compared to the umbra. This quasi light spot symbolised the virtual entry of the Sun into the Ara Pacis. To an observer (sitting on the external steps of Ara Pacis or standing in front of the steps) looking alternately towards the Sun and Ara Pacis, it seemed that the “Sun itself was entering the sanctuary of Ara Pacis “!
This novel “Sun Spectacle” feature
of Horologium Augusti - Ara Pacis is a virtual
“Symbolical Sun Entry Birthday Function”
to honour Emperor Augustus.
The obelisk’s long umbral shadow functioned as a bidirectional pointer to show where the observers should look to.
Let’s see the marvellous artificial annular solar eclipse in a backlit photo via a somewhat darkened glass.
The “Artificial Annular Solar Eclipse”, as seen from the external steps of Ara Pacis.
– The day before the AEQ day, the shadow of the obelisk body was still too short; however, two days after the AEQ day, it was already disturbingly long. In fact, from the 2nd day after the day of AEQ, the tip of the pyramidion’s shadow extended to the vestibule in front of the inner altar steps more and more visibly. Therefore, the above “Sun Spectacle” only worked properly on the day of AEQ and the day after. The two-day celebration of the birthday of Emperor Augustus, the biduum, thus constituted a kind of borderline date-pair (in AD212 and after) for the observability of this “Sun Entry Phenomenon”, the “Symbolical Sun Entry Birthday Function “.
To sum up:Buchner was right so far that the two beautiful buildings“cooperated” on the birthday of Emperor Augustus.However,from 212CE,on the two days of the birthday celebrations of Emperor Augustus,not the shadow of the obelisk but symbolically“The Sun as Symbol of Augustus Entered” the inner sanctum of the Ara Pacis.
Let us see another novel and beautiful “Sun function” of Ara Pacis:
Let us examine what happened after the obelisk’s shadow left Ara Pacis.
While the shadow of the obelisk passed in front of the Ara Pacis, the shadow of the wall above the western portal (straight arch) fell on the front wall of the altar table. Because of the shading effect of the straight arch, the late afternoon sunshine could reach the altar table only when its rays approached the horizontal, that is, at sunset.
Sunset on the evening of the AEQ day. The Sun Symbol placed on the Altair Table is illuminated by the last rays before darkness.
As the day of the AEQ approached, the sunset shadow of the north side wall of the western entrance was cast less and less on the altar as sunset occurred further south. So, the sunshine could be projected undisturbed to the middle of the altar table. From the day of the AEQ, full sunlight flooded the centre of the altar every sunset. A solar symbol (like another gilded sphere) placed on the middle of the altar table would glow with beautiful light at sunset. This “sunset phenomenon” continued through winter until the next Vernal Equinox (VEQ).
The Ara Pacis was the "symbolicalguardian" of the entered Sunfrom the day of Autumnal Equinox, from the birthday of Emperor Augustus until the next Vernal Equinox.
I guess the priests of Emperor Augustus lit some candles inside Ara Pacis after sunset to maintain the brilliance of the gilded sphere placed on the altar table during the night, too.
These phenomena were only significant for Emperor Augustus
if they were observable on his birthday,
i.e. if his birthday fell on the day of the AEQ. All these light phenomena on the astronomical AEQ day
strengthen my hypothesis that
the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis complex
was designed not only for the AEQ day but also for
the coinciding birthday of Emperor Augustus.
The coincidence indicates that Emperor Augustus
lived 220 years later than currently accepted.
The RECOUNTING of TIME 
