The most widespread view of Julius Caesar’s calendar reform is that after 45BC, the leap years were misapplied, namely every 3rd year instead of every 4th. Brutus assassinated Caesar in March of 44BC, so this seems believable.
This is the so-called fencepost error; see the image above. For a 10m long fence, 11 posts are needed, not 10. It is today a typical “software cycle bug” in programming. Some explain the leap year error as an “inclusive count” mistake of the leap year cycle. This is hardly plausible, as it would suggest that they may have been counting in the current “exclusive way” when the leap year cycle of the new calendar was set and promulgated.
The leaping failure lasted rather long, 36 years. Instead of nine, 12 leap years were added. Emperor Augustus had to restore the calendar after 9BC, omitting three leap years. Because emperor Augustus restored the calendar, it only started to function correctly (according to the original plan) again from AD8. Some calendar experts calculate that the restoration was finished already in AD4.
The above erroneous use of leap years is described by only one early reference and one later recollection (Solinus, 3rd century AD and Macrobius, 5th century AD). However, at least nine conflicting theories explain the misuse of leap years, and the different recalculations show unreliable results.
According to recent research on the other side, it is known that in Alexandria, the correct roman calendar leaping was applied during these years. Emperor Augustus seems to change the old civil calendar in Alexandria according to the 4-year leap-year cycle of the Julian calendar as early as 24BC.
In my opinion, if Augustus knew already in 24BC that the Roman 3-year leap year application was wrong, he would not have waited until 9BC to start correcting the error in Rome. (Even though that year he was not yet the “lord of time”, Augustus was Pontifex Maximus only from 12BC). And if in 24BC he had not yet known that the leap year was wrong, he would have introduced the bad leap year of 3 years in Alexandria, too.
The correct decreed and applied Roman leap year in Egypt may suggest that Rome’s calendar was not corrupted for 36 years. As far as I see, the later historical recollection of the misunderstanding and misuse of leap years may be wrong.
On the other side, it also appears that the Gregorian Dilemma would have meant six days instead of 3 if there had indeed been a leap year error, but Emperor Augustus would not have restored it.
For a long time, many calendar scholars assumed that Pope Gregory XIII had to delete ten days because the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had already removed three days from the Julian calendar earlier. The omission of 3 days by the First Council of Nicaea is now rejected by most scholars because there is no evidence. There are no sources of skipped days or changing the order of leap years either in the year of the First Council of Nicaea or in the decades followed. However, the final solution to this dilemma has been missing until now.
All the sources I know claim that Emperor Augustus has fully restored the Julian calendar, considering all the days passed. So, as a total of inserted and cancelled leap years of the Julian calendar, no days were added or deleted before AD8. Consequently, how leap years were applied up to AD8 is only relevant if we look for a specific date between 45BC and AD8.
The significant point for the following is that between AD8 to AD1582 (from finishing the restoration by Augustus until the calendar reform of Pope Gregory XIII), the Julian calendar functioned continuously and unchanged as planned initially by Caesar and Sosigenes. (Whether or not the leap year error and the restoration took place.)
We come back to the leap year issue in a later post concerning the birthday of Emperor Augustus.
Since the lunar month is approximately 29.5 days long, the oldest version of the early Roman lunar calendar, which dates to before the state’s founding, probably had months of 29-30 days, alternating.
Over the centuries before Caesar’s reign, the old Roman lunar calendar underwent several profound transformations. Already Romulus or Numa Pompilius had increased the length of the months. The year began with March, and only ten months were given names or numbers. This lunar calendar of 304 days was created, with four named months (Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Iunius) and six numbered ones (5th-Quintilis; 6th-Sextilis; 7th-September; 8th-October; 9th-November and 10th-December). However, these ten months did not make up a solar year, so a two-month anonymous period was inserted into the period of winter inactivity.
Later, the onset of winter got the names Ianuarius and Februarius; the calendar had 12 months. The calendar year would have been only 354 days long in standard years, but it was extended to 355 days because of superstition. For this purpose, the length of the months was changed. Four months of 31 days, seven months of 29 days and February of 28 days resulted in a 355-day year. The structure of the Republican 355-day calendar is presented in the next chapter.
Meanwhile, in 153 BC, the first day of the year was moved to 1 January, when the new officials took office.
This would not have been sufficient for the revamped calendar to build a solar year. Therefore, 22 or 23 “leap days” (intercalation) were alternately inserted between 23 and 24 February every two years. Formally changed the length of February (including the intercalary months if needed) according to the sequence: 28 days or 50 days, and 28 days or 51 days.
The duration of the four-year cycle was thus 355+377+355+378 = 1465 days.
However, this made the years about one day too long; on average, 1465/4 = 366.25 days.
The astronomical phenomena, e.g., the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, continued to “jump” in the calendar. Their dates also “slipped” backward in the calendar by an average of 1 day per year.
The situation was aggravated because the priests who kept the calendar did not follow the calendar rules. The 22 or 23 extra days (intercalation) prescribed every two years were applied irregularly.
The Roman calendar was “destroyed” so much that Caesar had to add 67 extra days to the year 46 BC (in addition to the required 23 days). As a result, the “last year of confusion” (Ultimusannus confusionis) was 445 days.
This post briefly analyses why it is theoretically possible to insert a long period into history and shows how to interpret the effects of the insertion of an extended period.
We examine when was it possible to insert many years and how long the inserted period can be. Connecting, we also outline some “ideas” that can be used to implement the insertion of never happened historical events.
Historians have determined the annual time-distance and dates of the most basic ancient historical events by astronomical “countdown”, back-calculation. That is, by retroactive calculations back to the dates of an astronomical phenomenon that occurred at the same time as the event in question and was recorded together with it. The usually long interval between real (or in some cases only estimated) astronomical coincidences was filled by the (sometimes not precisely known) relative historical chronology (order of rulers, consuls, papal lists, etc.).
Most of the regularly observed astronomical phenomena are periodic (phases of the moon, planetary alignments, i.e., conjunctions, etc.). That is why the exact timing of ancient historical events is easy to miss, confuse and confound with cycles or multiples of cycles belonging to the given celestial phenomena. And the error, the insertion is difficult to detect, especially many years later.
When years are inserted relative to a particular astronomical phenomenon e.g., the date of a specific full moon, as a reference time, the date of the actual historical event is “pushed back” to the astronomical date of another, similar but an earlier full moon.
Unfortunately, the astronomical years do not have their own year marking; their year is identical to the serial number of the historical calendar years. This common identification of the years makes it difficult to detect even a longer inserted period. (The so-called JD Julian day is an artificial astronomical number, which can also be vice-versa converted into incorrectly numbered years and dates, too.)
I think that obviously, only a period insertion is possible that complies with the following principles:
it occurred before the spread of AD time reckoning,
it does not violate the long-existing weekly cycle,
it does not break the long-existing leap year cycle,
it does not violate astronomical cycles.
It seems evident that a fictitious historical period can only be created between really happened historical events. Regardless of whether it was a deliberate falsification or just an error was accepted afterwards, the virtual time gap in the accurate chronology had to be filled with fictitious historical events. Otherwise, it would have been effortless to discover the error later.
Of course, there can be no “time gap” in continuous astronomical time.
As we have seen, the year designations in antiquity did not go back a long time. Only a few historians cared about how many years earlier an old event happened. This required tedious calculations and historical considerations because only “ad hoc” year designations were recorded for short periods. That is why an inserted period was challenging to realise afterwards before introducing the AD system.
However, the fictitious historical event is difficult to discern today, too, because we have become accustomed to our calendar years and take them for granted. Today, we think back “numerically” to the old historical events described somewhere. By simply subtracting the calendar year of an old event, we can answer how many years earlier the old event took place. We do not think back in historical event order as scientists did before the existence of a retrospective time reckoning system. Therefore, the fictitious event appears to be realistic at first glance since even the wrong year assigned to the fictional event can be subtracted from the year of the calculation.
Nowadays, we think in terms of AD years, and that is why we keep the AD system in this blog, as already mentioned above. This way, it is easiest for us to formulate the effects of inserting, even if the AD time reckoning is wrong as assumed.
That is, we merely “transform” the year of specific historical events into another AD year whenever it seems to be necessary. We are doing the same as how researchers have transformed the year of Jesus’ birth from AD1 to 7BC.
To see what an insertion results and how to interpret it, let us look at Illig’s theory as an example, demonstrated in the figure below:
By omitting the insertion of the 297 years of ILLIG, the events in AD1 are shifted to AD298, to their original position. If Jesus had been born in AD298, that year could be named IlligAD1 in the calendar beginning in the assumed initial year of Jesus’ birth. If we were to make this change, we would have to write now IlligAD1725, 297 years less than AD2022.
However, we remained in the familiar AD time. Let us interpret the circumstances in this given environment. Due to the insertion, the AD era consists of three parts of different attributes, as in the figure above:
the 1st period before the beginning of the insertion is “invariant”,
the 2nd period the insertion itself is “incriminated”,
the 3rd period after the insertion is “incremented”.
Invariant means that the AD year of the actual historical events of this pre-fictional era remained intact, relative to AD1, uninfluenced by the insertion. On the other hand, the entire invariant period was pushed back in time, and these events appear even older for us when we look back today.
The incriminated insertion period is not as simple as it seems to be at first glance. Assuming, for example, that an ancient warlord had a battle 10 years before the beginning of the insertion and had another struggle 12 years after the start of the insertion. In this case, part of an actual historical sequence of events appears in the incriminated period. Likewise, if a great scientist is born 30 years before the end of the incriminated period, but his book is first completed 20 years after the incriminated period, the actual event of his born remains in the incriminated period. These possible overlaps show that the insertion can partly be filled by really happened historical events, too. Of course, the period between the overlaps must be filled with fictional events. It is also clear that if an era has been inserted into history, it does not mean that the whole period should simply be erased because all its events are fictitious, as Illig claims.
Let’s look at a particular case. We know that the Islamic calendar starts in the summer of AD622, which falls within the historical years that Illig says do not exist, i.e., a drop in the insertion, according to Illig. However, this does not mean that the Islam event did not occur. On the contrary, the beginning of the Islam calendar, counting back from the present day according to the erroneous AD calendar, falls precisely in AD622 because our countdown results in a “timespan” of 2022-622 = 1400 years. This is because the Islam and AD calendar were synchronised in this way, of course, retroactively. On the other hand, it also means that according to Illig, the Islamic calendar did not start 622-1=621 years after AD1, but 622-297 = 325 years after IlligAD1= AD298, i.e., much closer to the later birth of Jesus. (In fact, in AD2022, the Islamic Hijri year is 1443-1444, depending on the date, because the Hijri year of the Islamic lunar calendar is shorter than the AD year.)
Of course, the AD-year of given events in the incriminated part is increased relative to AD1 by a fraction of the insertion’s length (depending on the event’s position within the incriminated region).
The above also implies that, for a 220-year historical jump in time, less than 220 years of fictitious events could be sufficient to fill the time gap. In practice, a few dozen fictitious events would seem to fill the 220-year period.
I called the 3rd period “incremented”. Incremented means that the AD years of the actual historical events of this post-fictional era are increased, relative to AD1, by the number of years of the insertion. On the other hand, the year distance of the actual historical events belonging to the incremented period counted backwards from today is accurate.
Let’s see what long the inserted “time gap” could be at all:
One must be aware that it was only after the fall of the Western Roman Empire that it became possible to insert a long fictitious period (within the AD scale). The explanation is that the Roman era is a well-documented, continuous chronological period that cannot be interrupted by long insertions. That is why the lower limit for insertion is AD476, the year of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
On the other hand, after the fall of the Western Rome Empire, there was a transitional period in which there were no well-organized states in Europe, and therefore, literacy was rarer than before. This period is called the “Dark Age” or “Dark Middle Ages” (See Explanations). There was a possibility that some documents were later removed but especially inserted! The history of this after-Rome-time is not well-known; its chronology is incomplete and uncertain! It was possible to make a whole period appear much longer than it really was. Historical events could be inserted that never took place and/or extended in duration or time-distance and therefore wrong.
The acceptable period for insertion can be narrowed down by considering that Venerable Bede was the first to apply AD1 and the AD designation of Exiguus for time reckoning.
This means that AD725 can no longer be an “incriminated year”. In other words, AD725 is probably the most minor year in the wrong AD chronology, which falls already in the “increased” zone. It is correct, i.e., in the accurate year-distance counting back from the current year!
Based on this reasoning, the most likely interval for inserting a fictitious period is between AD476 and AD725. A total of 249 years is therefore available to "accommodate" a possible insertion. These 249 years could include the 200 years of Hunnivári or the 247 years of Szekeres,
but the 297 years of Illig cannot fit in. Illig’s phantom time era is simply too long to be inserted.
However, there is a serious issue! The AD525 "Exiguus' year" and the AD725 "Bede's year" are 200 years apart! The gap of the Hunnivári theory
just "fits" into these 200 years!
But how should it be possible
to fit my 220 years into these 200 years?
I must admit, this is where it became exciting for me! So I have searched and found a solution to this issue! Because the extra 20 years had to be “eliminated” somehow! But the “how” will only be revealed towards the end of my story!
The question naturally arises:
How can history that never happened be inserted among the events of actual history? The proponents of falsification, such as the theorists above, offer some ideas. For example, it is possible to make “historical duplicates”. One could double describe a battle that happened in another year in the same or a slightly different place, even with a warlord of a similar name. One can invent members of a dynasty of rulers who never existed, thus extending and adding weight to the history of that dynasty. The length of a proper sequence of events can be extended. It is possible to invent a whole series of popes who never existed, as Hunnivári has shown.
As a complement to the above ideas, the already mentioned Easter tables (as we will see later) could also contribute to the confusion of the AD time reckoning.
All these “practices” cover up the inserted period and give the impression that no fictitious historical events exist.
To finish these arguments, I note:
The radiometric and dendrochronological (tree ring) or similar dating methods only provide information about the elapsed years. The resulting elapsed years can be back-calculated according to any time reckoning system, whether the starting year of the given system is correct or not.
The official historiography classified Illig’s work as a “conspiracy theory” and did not go into a detailed refutation of the individual claims. Some astronomers have found “astronomical counterarguments“, and these are briefly summarised below.
An essential astronomical counterargument to the year-shifting of 200-300 years is that only the insertion of a Great Easter Cycle, 532 years, would have been possible because only this interval would have been difficult to detect. The reason for this is that in the Julian calendar months, days of the week and the corresponding phases of the moon repeat themselves in the same way only after 532 years. For astronomical and calendrical reasons, in mathematical terms, this means that the number of inserted fictitious years should be divisible by 19 and 28 (19*28 = 532). The 19 years is the length of the “Metonic cycle” (See Explanations). The 28 (7*4) years are the “solar cycle“, the number of years required in the Julian calendar for the leap years to repeat in the same way. The 7 is the “weekly cycle”, the number of the days of the week, and the 4 is the “leap year cycle“. (All this seems correct but is wrong because it is inaccurate, as we will show later).
The strongest counterargument of the astronomers is the “precession objection”, based on the approximately 25,920-year precession cycle of the Earth’s rotation axis.
The great ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus is considered the first describer and measurer of precession. Hipparchus determined the celestial position of many fixed stars, e.g., Spica. Since the year of Hipparchus measurement (128BC), 2144 years have passed until AD2017, corresponding to a precession angle difference of 29.8 degrees. (See later)
"If history were about 2.5 centuries shorter, there would have been about three degrees less angular rotation, since the angular velocity of precession is constant to a good approximation. Three degrees would be too large an error even for ancient (astronomical) measurements."
According to experts, the above relationships and astronomical cycles were already well known to ancient astronomers. Eventual forgers or those who accepted an error afterwards would undoubtedly have considered them.
Of course, these cycles exist and were well-known also in ancient times. Despite these facts, the refutations based on them are not acceptable.
We will show later that
these cycles cannot exclude the possibility
of the insertion of an era into the AD time.
When someone comes across a new hypothesis, it is expected to present at least briefly the previous theories on his topic. It is also appropriate to state why we disagree with the other approaches, and we do these in this post.
We have seen that (according to unanimous church and historical statements) our chronology is based on Exiguus’ calculation in AD525, but Exiguus made a “mistake” of 7 years.
Many professional historians have recognised that our reckoning of time has a “much greater uncertainty” than Exiguus’ 7-year error. However, they don’t want to talk about it for fear of putting their reputations on the line. In particular, the existence or length of the Dark Middle Ages is in question. (See Explanations)
As mentioned above, three well-known theories about the misinterpretation of the AD era emerged in the minds of amateur historians. Initially, I wanted to refute these three theories for my own “amusement”. (There are also “wilder” ideas, like Fomenko’s “New Chronology” hypothesis, based on mathematics and history).
According to two theories, “a reverse theft occurred”. Years were not made to disappear, but intentionally fictitious phantom years were inserted into the “historical time gap” between really happened historical events.
ILLIG
The most famous of these speculations is the already mentioned “conspiracy theory” of Heribert ILLIG: “The Invented Middle Ages”. (Original German title: “Das erfundene Mittelalter“). Illig claims that a Europe-wide “conspiratorial forgery” inserted 297 fictitious years, i.e., between AD614 and AD911, there were no historical events in our history. Earlier events happened 297 years later.
He states that the history of Charlemagne never happened, and it was invented. Illig bases his theory mainly on the fact that many documents from Charlemagne’s time were false.
Illig has written another book with co-author “Hungary in the Invented Middle Ages” (See above. As far as I know, not available in English)
Unfortunately, his books could not clarify the contradictions between the chronology of the old Hungarian chronicles and today’s scientific view of the Hunnic-Hungarian ancestry.
Moreover, the insertion of 297 years seems to be impossible because it is too long. This issue will be explained in detail later.
HUNNIVÁRI
The theory of Zoltán Skoda (his mainly used pen name is Hunnivári) is similar, but according to him, 194-200 “fictitious years” were inserted, depending on the time. Hunnivári places the insertion between AD880 and AD1080. Furthermore, for example, the list of popes for the inserted years was falsified, according to Hunnivari.
Although Hunnivári uses mainly astronomic arguments, it isn’t easy to imagine in his theory that the length of the fictive time he envisions could vary over time. This would mean that the chronology was manipulated and corrected several times, which I think is unlikely. But it is also unlikely that such minor corrections and interventions, which could have been documented without loss of prestige, are not mentioned in history. Moreover, the 200 years of insertion assumed by Hunnvári falls in the time when AD time reckoning became gradually widely used in Europe, as we know, for example, from the works of the scientist István Hahn and from other sources, too.
SZEKERES
In contrast to the two theories mentioned above, Sándor Szekeres claims that the misinterpretation of our time reckoning happened by chance. (His book was published only in Hungarian, and its title in my translation is: “Accidental miscalculation of time”). According to Szekeres, the Parthian UR time reckoning, which began 247 years before AD1, was by mistake applied to the birth of our Dominus Jesus.
The Parthian UR time reckoning was introduced by Arsaces I., the founder of Parthia, also called Parthian Empire. Arsaces I. was also called UR Arsaces, i.e., Latin Dominus Arsaces, because the meanings of Ur are Lord, Ruler, and God. (By the way, the interpretations of the word “Úr” (U with an accent, long pronounced u) are the same also in both old and today’s Hungarian). So, long before Anno Domini was introduced for Jesus’ years by Exiguus, the Latin AD abbreviation was used according to Szekeres for the years of Dominus Arsaces, too. (A further application of AD for the years of Emperor Diocletian will be shown later.)
As far as I see, an accidental miscalculation cannot remain undetected for centuries. The retrospective correction would have led to less loss of reputation than the retroactive detection of the earlier acceptance of the error.
None of these three theories disputes the correct chronology of the entire Roman period. They agree that the “back-shifting” of a period created a “historical time gap” that had to be filled by fictitious historical events. By omitting the fictitious filling, it means that by reconstructing the original state, the Roman dates would get centuries (200; 247; 297 years) closer to our present day.
The already mentioned “Gregory’s dilemma” is an emphasised argument of the inventors and supporters of the “time falsehood”. I repeat the dilemma here:
“If our calendar were correct, Pope Gregory XIII could not have corrected the Julian calendar by deleting ten days when he introduced the Gregorian calendar in AD 1582. He would have had to omit 13 days. The vernal equinox (short VEQ; see Abbreviations) moves back one day every 128 years in the Julian calendar. The backwards shift would have been 13 days in 1626 years (45BC-AD1582), while the deleted ten calendar days correspond to only 1280 elapsed years.”
This is a solid astronomical argument to underline the possibility of the insertion of centuries. Calendar researchers resisted this argument by experimenting with contradictory explanations of the beginning period of the Julian Calendar. Their most accepted view is that the VEQ-day was placed on 25 March in 45BC. Furthermore, it is a widespread view today that the insertion of the leap years occurred at the beginning erroneously, as we show later.
A related note. For a long time, many calendar scholars assumed that Pope Gregory XIII had to omit 10 days instead of 13 when he introduced his calendar reform because the I. Council of Nicaea (AD325) had already omitted 3 days from the Julian calendar. The omission of 3 days by the First Council of Nicaea is now rejected by most scholars because there is no evidence. There are no sources or clues about omitted days or changes in leap years after the 1st Council of Nicaea.
However, the final solution to this dilemma has been missing until now.
These Issues will be elaborated on soon in detail.
Of course, my not only numerically different current hypothesis is my major refutation of the above three theories.
This post briefly summarises the essential uncertainties surrounding the dates of Jesus’ life.
AD1 is the year of the birth of Jesus Christ, as almost everyone until recently took for granted.
Jesus Christ was about 30 years old when he began to teach and was crucified about three years later, at the age of 33, as we know it today.
On the other hand, there are also expert opinions that Jesus Christ was less than 50 years old at his crucifixion in Jerusalem.
As seen, in the ages before the spread of the AD system, the so-called “calendar year” (i. e., the continuous serial number of years beginning long before) was not known at all. The number of elapsed years between two events was significant. The answer to the question in which year the birth and the crucifixion of Jesus could have taken place was not even essential to the Christian Church for a long time.
In fact, the year of Jesus Christ’s birth is still only “conjectured” because, unfortunately, no reliable data about Jesus’ birth and youth are known.
We seem to know, for example, that his coming was foretold. And that there are beautiful legends about the circumstances of his birth.
Even it is not proven whether “Jesus of Nazareth” was born in Judea, in Betlehem (without th) near Jerusalem, or in Galilee, in the other Bethlehem (with th) that still exists today, next to Nazareth? Have a look at Google maps below:
According to some archaeologists, the area around Betlehem near Jerusalem (which was still inhabited at the time of the ancient Kingdom of Judah) was partially deserted and desolate during the Roman occupation. In contrast, the area around Bethlehem near Nazareth was fertile and densely populated long before and at the time of Jesus’ birth and still is today.
Presumably, the legends surrounding Jesus’ birth are (like legends in general) based on facts. In my observation, legends crystallise after several versions have been woven around keywords (such as the number 3); nevertheless, the true origin is usually obscured.
Legends, in themselves, cannot be the basis of historical evidence. On the other hand, they can contribute to proving if the base of the legends can be identified.
According to the legends, Jesus was the expected Messiah for the “Three Kings”, the “Wise Men from the Sunrise”, or others, “Magi” from the East. However, it is legitimate to ask why then is so little recorded about Jesus’ youth, his studies, his travels, and his life until he began teaching at the age of 30? It is reasonable to think that when Jesus became a famous healer, teacher, and prophet, his followers added miraculous stories (e.g., virgin birth) to his approximate date of birth, as happened with other great prophets who founded religions.
The early Christians originally celebrated the birthday of Jesus on 6 January, the “day of the three kings”, or, according to another interpretation, the day of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan (Epiphany). It was only in the early 4th century that the Church decided to celebrate the feast on 25 December, now Christmas Day.
It is generally believed today that this was the early Christian Church’s way of “covering up” the feast of lights of the faith of Mithras and the later Roman Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun). So luring the followers of the earlier religions to the newer Christian religion.
It is known that 25 December was initially the birthday of the Persian sun-god, Mithra.
According to recent research, Jesus was not born in AD1, but 7 years earlier, in 7BC. (7BC corresponds to “AD-6”, which in astronomy is simply -6; since there is no “zero” year in the AD system. The number zero was unknown in antiquity. The distance of the BC years from the AD years is obtained by the simple addition of the years with negative signs for the BC years, e.g. AD1-7BC = 1-(-6) = 1+6=7)
The year of Jesus’ birth, 7BC, was determined by the Hungarian Jesuit priest and astronomer Ágoston Teres (Gustav Teres), who died in 2007. Aurel Thewrewk Ponori, a well-known Hungarian astronomer, also came to this conclusion simultaneously.The Vatican tacitly accepted this scientific amendment.
In fact, we cannot be sure even nowadays
what year and what day Jesus was born, as I am going to show later.
Exiguus performed the calculation back to AD1 precisely 7 years earlier (AD525 instead of AD 532) than it would have been necessary for practice, even though the count could be done at most in a few weeks. And he made 7 years of error.
The double difference of 7 years seems to be a “strange coincidence”, of which we will come back later!
More significant than the legend of Jesus’ birth are the circumstances of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
The most sacred feast in Christianity is the celebration of the Resurrection, Easter.
(You can also watch Zeffirelli’s film on youtube.)
There are many ancient writings about the crucifixion of Jesus. Of the more than 200 ancient writings, only four were highlighted by the early Christian Church: The Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke were accepted and canonised as a divine revelation; the others were considered apocryphal, forbidden.
Matthew and John were among the 12 apostles who heard the teachings of Jesus in the original. Mark was younger, recording the memories and opinions of the apostle Peter. Luke was Paul’s helper, companion, and disciple. Paul was not one of the 12 apostles and initially persecuted Jesus’ disciples as a believing Jew. It was only after Jesus’ resurrection, after their meeting on the “Damascus road”, that St Paul (earlier called Saul) was converted.
Whereas in St. Peter’s conception, Christianity was aimed at reforming the Jewish religion, Paul was the “chief ideologue” and most effective missionary to spread the Christian faith among the non-Jews.
According to the Gospels, the crucifixion of Jesus took place during the reign of Pontius Pilate in Judea (AD26-AD36), on the 14th of the Jewish month of Nisan, on a Friday before Passover. (Passover is the Jewish Easter, Nisan 15-21; Nisan, see Explanations)
According to today’s accurate calendar converters, only in AD26, AD33, and AD36 do the date Nisan 14 fall on a Friday during this period. (Previously, it was calculated that Nisan 14 and Friday coincided in AD27, AD30, AD33, and AD36.)
Despite the many gospel accounts
of Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection,
only this Nisan 14 Friday seems to be sure.
The year of the crucifixion is uncertain.
Today, AD33 is the most accepted year,
but many scholars prefer AD36, and there are other opinions, too.
Alone because of these uncertainties around the dates of Jesus’ life, it is not to avoid that some people think of the possible mistakes of the AD time reckoning.
Any “phantom time theory” seems to be unbelievable and unacceptable. This is probably why even those who like to deal with history show little interest in the suspected but not yet proved and accepted inaccuracy of our AD chronology.
Or more precisely formulated, in the confusion of the AD time reckoning.
(AD stands for Anno Domini, see Abbreviations. Chronology and time reckoning has different meanings: see Explanations. Sometimes I use “AD system” or “AD time” as synonyms for AD time reckoning.)
This lack of interest is understandable since professional historians emphasise that the open questions about the more than 2000 years old AD era have long since been resolved.
The only exception to this disinterest is Heribert ILLIG’s book on the falsification of our chronology, “The Invented Middle Ages “., generally called the most famous “Phantom Time Theory“.
It is a well-known historical fact that there were many forged documents in earlier times. The usual purpose was to retroactively prove the origin of specific claims (e. g., inheritance and property rights). ILLIG, too, based much of his work on the existence of a considerable number of forged documents.
In my opinion, ILLIG’s fiction became famous mainly because science (instead of refuting it with plausible counterarguments) put the stamp of “conspiracy theory “, short “CT“, on it. In our time, many people like fiction (although many also consider it fact), e. g. science fiction, (sci-fi), and even conspiracy theories. CTs are based on accusing certain groups of “misdirection”, “secrecy”, and “stealth”. Undoubtedly, this also finds a strong emphasis on ILLIG’s theory.
(As an aside, my general opinion on CTs is that people usually make them up after the fact. However, not entirely without reason. Because throughout history, there has always been a lot of misdirection and “manipulation” to enforce an interest. I call this a “conspiracy practice”. Since the manipulated cannot understand what has happened and why and are reluctant to admit that they have been misled, they invent a conspiracy theory for the unpleasant situation that has arisen spontaneously, as the result of many manipulations, not necessarily coordinated in a conspiration).
The main difference between science fiction and CT is that sci-fi is characterised by rational or seemingly logical reasoning. I enjoy sci-fi, but CTs don’t make me angry either because I tend to think they might also have a kernel of truth like the origins of legends. Despite my indulgent attitude, I have so far found all fiction and conspiracy theories I have read, including ILLIG’s theory, unacceptable.
Nevertheless, my present hypothesis is a distant relative of ILLIG’s theory and originated on the fringes of these two “fashionable genres”. I classify my own “invention” in the genre of “historical fiction “, as I mentioned above.
It resembles science fiction because one of the definitions of sci-fi says that it “deals with unrecognised problems and offers a rational solution to them.” My writing offers a rational, astronomical solution to suspected historical issues that science does not recognise. At the same time, my hypothesis can also be considered a conspiracy theory, although I only touch on misdirection, secrecy, and camouflage.
I state:
A significant miscalculation of AD time cannot be ruled out!
I claim that the possible error in the AD time reckoning is:
Insertion of 220 years of historical events that never took place!
A "confusion" of the AD time by 220 years is possible!
I use the term “confusion” because the word may mean both intentional and accidental mistakes. Moreover, the most significant event of the AD time reckoning has been shifted in the opposite direction than the other ones, and this bidirectional falsehood is a “confusion” indeed.
The above statement is, of course, only a hypothesis until proven by scientists in the fields concerned.
(This is why I ask the reader to put my “feverishly exploratory” statements, even definite statements, in conditional mode.Unless my hypothesis can be proven by scientific rigour, I have written a scenario on systematically constructing complex historical fiction. While entertaining myself, I learned a lot about history and astronomy!)
Although it starts with an ABSTRACT, the present hypothesis is not a scientific work. I summarise my observations in a simplified form, hoping that this simplification results in better clarity. Even though what I have to say is complex.
Scientists can regard my view as fiction alone because I am not an expert in the concerned fields, but only an amateur, a computer engineer interested in calendars, history, and time reckoning. But the abstract is not intended only for experts who happen to stumble across my blog; it can be helpful for any reader to decide if he is interested in this topic.
At my age, I would be particularly pleased to be accused of having too vivid an imagination because I follow Mark Twain: “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”
Having come across a seemingly impossible hypothesis, I may shock the esteemed reader. Although my theory refers to long past times, it also causes the present. Therefore, I hope it will provide new ideas for those interested in history and astronomy, whether my fiction is true or just a reflection of my imagination.
I can see that my hypothesis is extraordinarily bold, and my imagination is so fierce that only an amateur may propose such a hypothesis. Already by the hint of a similar theory, any respected authority could lose its scientific reputation.
The AD time reckoning used todaywas verified astronomically.So, I want to show that exactlyon an astronomical basis:“Another historical chronology”seems to be possible.
In this study, I try to present my hypothesis understandably but also concisely. At the same time, I tried to check some historical data on an astronomical basis. Precise astronomy as a rational means of proving the hypothesis may offer a chance to get some experts thinking about the new year numbers.
This “intermediate way” is not easy because the average reader might have little knowledge about the necessary astronomical basics. Therefore, the reader can skip the astronomical details, and it is sufficient to understand the gist of the text accompanying them. And for readers interested in background information, there is the possibility of instantly accessing the underlined references in the text by screen-clicking. However, I would prefer to recommend that you study the details afterwards. It may be sufficient to use the buttons Abbreviations and Explanations when reading on screen.
There are also some less essential references in the text to give sources (especially the source of images), which cannot be clicked. Some of the attached pictures and figures can be enlarged by clicking.
I consider the AD time reckoning only as a year scale in which an old historical course, i. e. a more extended period, could also be wrongly classified.
Of course, it would never have occurred to me to change the AD system, which has been familiar for a long time! Therefore, I remain with the AD time system and assign a new AD year or date to certain old events. To facilitate the distinction, my “new AD years“, which are proposed in the context of my hypothesis, are marked with the equivalent year notation CE (Common Era) for AD and BCE (Before CE) for BC. (See Abbreviations, or Common Era – Wikipedia)
Shortly, my hypothesis is an imagination
on the one side
but is an invention based on astronomical facts
on the other side.
The decision is yours whether you see my hypothesis as
“a novel theory of phantom time.”
or
“a novella on phantom time theory”.
Of course, the reader is right to ask how an amateur can have the courage to make such a far-reaching hypothesis.
The following thought-provoking quotations and my comments on them are my attempt to “explain” my audacity:
“The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy.”
My comment:
-Therefore, history writing is inherently subjective, even according to the known and respected historian. Thus, even an amateur can fantasise about history or theorise about falsifying it in the past.
Napoleon Bonaparte, Churchill, Dan Brown, and others said:
“History is written by the victors”.
My comment:
– Indeed, the victors rewrite past events to make their “own history” seem better.
– But the chronology and a given time reckoning should be written by the stars of the heavens!
“Chronology is the backbone of history “, the old saying goes. But there is no consensus among historians on the absolute historical chronology. The fitting of the quasi-known “relative chronological fragments” is in many cases questionable. This applies mainly to older (ancient) events, e. g. “as many Egyptian chronologies as there are Egyptologists”.
There is already a seemingly clear consensus in the chronology of the last 2000 years of European history, reflected in the AD time reckoning.
It is possible, however, that this mirror is still curved!
The polysemantic title of this blog, “The Recounting of Time”, is a paraphrase. The paraphrase of “The Reckoning of Time“. (It is the usual translation of the title “De Temporum Ratione”, the monumental work of Saint Bede or The Venerable Bede.)
My hypothesis has to do with chronology, with the fallibility of our Anno Domini time reckoning.
“Recounting” should be interpreted as a comparative recalculation of time. A comparison of the elapsed astronomical time since some old historical events with the currently accepted calendrical years of the same events. Accordingly, the recalculation and comparison are based on astronomical foundations.
Despite this scientific basis, this writing, at least from a historical point of view, belongs more to the realm of phantasy. In this sense, I see my writing as an “invented historical story”, a “historical fiction”.
On the one side, the result of my fantasy is “tentative” in its current summarising form. It is still freely malleable, plastic within certain limits, and it flows almost down from my desk like Dali’s “melting” clock. By this, I mean that the details and consistency of the hypothesis can and should be further refined.
On the other hand, the hypothesis is complex and challenging for sensitive readers. Despite its complexity, I hope my writing is a generally understandable thesis formulation.
The blog might be of particular interest to readers who do have a taste for old history. At the same time, they should be ready to enjoy an “immersion” in astronomy, in the world of wild imagination and unusual ideas. (e.g., science fiction and conspiracy theories) I recommend it to “open-minded” readers who are “naturally curious” and, above all, ready for a “brain-training” away from the usual, nowadays fashionable ideas.
My blog puts together the thought process that led me to make my assertions. The fictional story is a “scenario” to explore a possible way. A way to examine and solve the chronological correspondence of astronomical phenomena and selected “historical key events” of the Roman Empire’s era and early medieval past.
A friend of mine told me that I (as an older man) look back to the past because I find it hard to bear the untruths and manipulations of the present. Well, who doesn’t? As a “consolation” for all of us, I realise that the falsehoods and manipulations may have been quite similar in the past because they are, unfortunately, human.
I will underline the possibility of a time-distant manipulation of our chronology. The same topic was presented somewhat similarly by others in the past but was not accepted by official science. Perhaps I can prove the misinterpretation or rather the falsification of our chronology? Previous theories to discover this medieval manipulation have failed, so it is likely that my exploration will also remain just another attempt.
Unlike previous “fact-finders,” I do not claim to be correct. The thought merely attracts me that I might be right. I believe that the issue I have raised is not closed and needs to be reconsidered scientifically. Because I am an amateur in the relevant fields, my age, and the interdisciplinary nature of the subject, I cannot take this in detail. So, I will barely touch on some key historical events (this isn’t a book). In any case, it would be difficult for any individual to solve this issue. A re-examination would require the collaboration of scientists from several disciplines. At least temporarily, these scientists would have to abandon their previous beliefs, which I certainly see no chance of doing.
The goal of my writing is to think further together.
Therefore, I would like to think together, above all, with people who are also amateurs. Those whose “professional competence has not yet clouded their view”, as my first boss (chief designer of a computer development), wittily, ambiguously, but seriously “encouraged” young electronics engineers more than 50 years ago.
Of course, it would be fascinating for me to talk to professionals who are sufficiently “brave” because their reputations could be at stake. I consider the blog very suitable because any expert can comment “incognito” here.
The exchange of opinions is only possible with different views.
I cordially invite interested readers
- to pose passionate, critical questions and
- to put well-founded counterarguments.
I would also appreciate it if my hypothesis would be refuted by experts strictly scientifically. This would strengthen my opinion that all calculations, even astronomical data, sometimes can be misinterpreted.
Hoping for a sympathetic discussion, I commend my study to all my dear and interested readers.
So, if you’ve read my post this far, you’ll have a sense of what the blog is about. Please share the blog with your friends and acquaintances on your favourite social media, even if you are not interested in the topic.
The old books of Venerable Bede provided the impetus for the practical introduction of today’s Anno Domini time reckoning. So I bow first and foremost to Bede’s life-work and initiative.
I remember with thanks the words of encouragement of my friends Tamás Gyorgyevics and Gábor Szalay.
I greatly appreciate the comments of my friend László Fabó, electrical engineer and the operational chairman of the Philosophical Discussion Group in Budapest, whose notes have made my message clearer.
To the bests of my remembrance belongs the gesture of Sándor Szekeres. Long before the birth of my hypothesis, he had conjured up on his screen the star Regulus, which is one of the astronomical cornerstones of both his and my theory as well.
Many thanks to Zoltán Hunnivári for his helpful comments in support of my hypothesis. He did it despite the decades of work he had put into his own theory, which is partly similar to mine. His theory and method of working were very stimulating for me.
I would like to express my special thanks to my astronomer friend Albert Gesztesi for his valuable professional and literary advice, especially for verifying my initial astronomical data and findings.
I am grateful to my friend Ingeborg Burger-Balogh for having revised my German version of the text with such care that she even contributed to the clarifying addition of the original Hungarian text.
Finally, although I wish I had done it first, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Böbe (Dr Erzsébet Urban), my wife, who has tolerated my frequent and lengthy browsing of books and screens with understanding and patience.
The RECOUNTING of TIME 