# Dating and Chronology



## Grosseteste (May 31, 2021)

The oldest book I own is dated 1507, and identified as printed in Venice. (See below: "Venetiis per Lazarum Soardum die prima Junii MDVII), so that establishes the very earliest date.

Venice was a centre for the printing business for a long time.


dreamtime said:


> The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
> What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.



Which is entirely consistent with the map being of 'ancient Italy'. Note the box at the top right labelled 'Auctores'. The cartographer is saying that the cities referenced on the map are those mentioned by the ancient authors he cites (e.g. Cicero, Pliny, Catullus etc).


----------



## dreamtime (May 31, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The oldest book I own is dated 1507, and identified as printed in Venice. (See below: "Venetiis per Lazarum Soardum die prima Junii MDVII), so that establishes the very earliest date.



Obviously it does not establish the very earliest date. It only tells us that someone printed a book and put the number 1507 on it. When, we don't know.

Same with Altinum - yes, it says "Italia antiqua", but we don't know what time they reference. Can be 100 years earlier, 200 years, or 1000 years.


----------



## Grosseteste (May 31, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Obviously it does not establish the very earliest date. It only tells us that someone printed a book and put the number 1507 on it. When, we don't know.
> 
> Same with Altinum - yes, it says "Italia antiqua", but we don't know what time they reference. Can be 100 years earlier, 200 years, or 1000 years.



On the Altinum point, I pointed out that the cartographer refers to ancient writers as sources. The reason he does not put Venice on the map is because he knows that Venice did not exist in ancient times. 

On the point about the date of the book being an invention, that is a radical and ultra-sceptical argument that is difficult to answer. It applies to every book every published: the date on the front is simply a number put on it.


----------



## dreamtime (May 31, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> On the Altinum point, I pointed out that the cartographer refers to ancient writers as sources. The reason he does not put Venice on the map is because he knows that Venice did not exist in ancient times.
> 
> On the point about the date of the book being an invention, that is a radical and ultra-sceptical argument that is difficult to answer. It applies to every book every published: the date on the front is simply a number put on it.



Since you do not appear to be accustomed with chronology revisionism - please educate yourself before commenting on more threads.

A good start is Anatoly Fomenko. 

It's good to be sceptical, but if you only repeat the official narrative, there are more fitting places for you than this forum.

We all understand the mainstream history, and I made it clear in my post that the cartographer refers to the "Old Italy". Everyone here knows that there are books with old dates printed on them, but that is not a proof of anything - in fact, if you study Anatoly Fomenko you will quickly understand that faking dates was a primary way to create a fake version of history.


----------



## Grosseteste (May 31, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Since you do not appear to be accustomed with chronology revisionism - please educate yourself before commenting on more threads.
> 
> A good start is Anatoly Fomenko.
> 
> ...



OK I won't post here any more. I have detailed knowledge of the scholastic writing of the High middle ages (1200-1330), I have published work on the subject. 

I don't understand why authors whose work I translated (such as Scotus and Ockham) would be faking dates. I am not repeating an 'official narrative', I research my subject for myself.

Farewell.


----------



## dreamtime (May 31, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I don't understand why authors whose work I translated (such as Scotus and Ockham) would be faking dates.



This thread is about Venice.

Anyway, a quick look at Wikipedia already tells us that the work by Scotus was riddled with inconsistencies:

A number of works once believed to have been written by Scotus are now known to have been misattributed. There were already concerns about this within two centuries of his death, when the 16th-century logician Jacobus Naveros noted inconsistencies between these texts and his commentary on the _Sentences_, leading him to doubt whether he had written any logical works at all.[28] _The Questions on the Prior Analytics_ (_In Librum Priorum Analyticorum Aristotelis Quaestiones_) were also discovered to be mistakenly attributed.[_citation needed_] In 1922, Grabmann showed that the logical work _De modis significandi_ was actually by Thomas of Erfurt, a 14th-century logician of the modist school. Thus the claim that Martin Heidegger wrote his habilitation thesis on Scotus[29] is only half true, as the second part is actually based on the work by Erfurt.[30]​​Which makes me ask - how do you know anything you read is from this guy called Scotus and whether he really existed?

In fact, it seems he never published anything in his life. German Wikipedia:

Due to his relatively early death, Scotus did not leave behind an organized work, but a multitude of manuscripts for lectures, quaestions, and disputations, of which only one text that remained incomplete (the Ordinatio, see below) was prepared for publication. The found writings were - following contemporary methods - smoothed by inserting supplementary notes or by omitting discrepancies, not, as would be customary today, published text-critically with all marginal notes, deletions and brackets. In addition, student transcripts were used as a source for improvements and additions. (...)​​Because of the uncertain source situation, a commission was formed in Rome in 1950 for a new critical edition of the theological writings of Scotus, whose work is far from complete even after more than 50 years. This is due, on the one hand, to the volume of the writings. The reprint of the Wadding edition comprises 26 volumes (ed. Vivès). Above all, however, the problem lies in the very costly reconstruction. In 1997, the Bonaventure Institute of the Franciscans in New York began to publish a complementary critical edition of the philosophical writings. Important translations of important parts of the Latin texts into the modern lingua franca did not take place until the 20th century.​


----------



## Grosseteste (May 31, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> This thread is about Venice.
> 
> Anyway, a quick look at Wikipedia already tells us that the work by Scotus was riddled with inconsistencies:
> 
> ...



That's funny. The source for the first quote is an article by my colleague Jack Zupko, with whom I wrote this book on Scotus. I followed this up with a further work "On the Authenticity of Scotus’s Logical Works", identifying which of those early works were authentic.  I also attempted to date them. 

But as you say, nothing is certain, and history is revised all the time. So it is unfair of you to say I am following the 'official line'. Some of my work (successfully) challenged that line. 

But returning to the subject of Venice, I have a number of early printed works in my library, published in Venice. Are you saying that these works are forged? What evidence is there for that claim? 

I have looked at some of Fomenko's work but I won't comment further.


----------



## Silveryou (May 31, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I have looked at some of Fomenko's work but I won't comment further.


I would like a comment on this one. And an explanation by an eminent expert about the foundation of modern chronology by Scaliger and his great achievements. I am particularly interested in a review of Scaliger's scientific method, with which he succesfully established year, month, day and hour of the most important events in the history of humankind. I would also like an explanation as to why his successors removed those fundamental data, impoverishing our knowledge of the past.

So, just a brief recap... what kind of scientific method did Scaliger use in his works to justify his historical reconstruction? An expert should be able to answer such an easy question. Thanks in advance


----------



## Grosseteste (May 31, 2021)

Then you would have to ask an eminent expert (which I am not) about the foundation of modern chronology. 

You might find this book useful. Dating the Passion

As I remarked in another thread, the science of chronology predates Scaliger by a long way, and the book above has much on that subject.


----------



## Silveryou (May 31, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Then you would have to ask an eminent expert (which I am not) about the foundation of modern chronology.
> 
> You might find this book useful. Dating the Passion
> 
> As I remarked in another thread, the science of chronology predates Scaliger by a long way, and the book above has much on that subject.


I am sorry but this is not a satisfying answer for me. If you don't know anything about chronology then you should stick to your area of "expertise". Modern chronology was founded by Scaliger and his successors, as it is renown by everyone who delves with this subject. Chronologies of the past are founded on ecclesiastical tradition, no scientific method involved, and the Scaligerian one is founded on the pre-existing non-scientific chronologies. But I understand that you don't know the subject and so you are unaware of the lack of science in the historical narrative.

But then... why keeping on commenting, if you don't want to face the chronological problem of our chronological system?
If you want to delve into the problem of chronology you should read a serious work by a mathematician on the subject, because chronology is not the subject of historians. Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs.  History: fiction or science? Volume 3.

Enjoy the reading


----------



## Safranek (Jun 1, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> OK I won't post here any more. I have detailed knowledge of the scholastic writing of the High middle ages (1200-1330), I have published work on the subject.



I was hoping for a different answer from you regarding dreamtime's statement, as I'd hope for anyone who writes in this forum. 

Here, its not about what we think we 'know'. Its about trying to find out the actual truth about events of the past and the timeline within which they occurred if they did at all.

I venture to say that all of us here 'knew' things regarding the many subjects discussed here, but we have come to realize by reading each other's research (usually backed by valid or questionable references), that things are not as they seem and most of what we thought we 'knew' did not have a solid foundation.

In order to proceed in the search for the actual truth, we have had to follow up on each other's references and either accept the advanced thesis or make a valid argument to counter it. This is the way forward and there is no other way. If we are not able to discard 'knowledge' based on unfounded or shaky/shady ground, we can't move forward and are stuck in our 'beliefs'.

You may be right in your assessment regarding your 'knowledge' but it is expected of you and everyone else to support your point of view in your own words with references included as to why you consider a subject to be so. If you do this thoroughly and your argument stands it's ground, it will add value to all our overall research and will add another piece of the puzzle for consideration.

Regarding your detailed knowledge, as you've stated yourself that you have no expertise in chronology, you owe it to yourself primarily and to the rest of us additionally, to follow up on info which already exists in this forum and elsewhere on the web regarding this subject as it is the KEY ELEMENT of our history.

Whether Scalinger, Fomenko, Heribert Illig, Egyptian, Mayan, Chinese or Hindu chronology is correct or partially correct is being debated by academics continuously and all views must be considered to form a congruent picture. Yes , its a lot of reading to do to qualify even touching the subject but without it, we are less competent in taking a stand in discussing this vast subject.

We must consider that its always the winner that either writes or approves history and provides the chronology, thereby making our task more difficult in trying to weed out the truth from fiction.

Consider this (and its safe to say it barely touches the extent of it):

List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

from this post:

Burning Books, Erasing Memories

This is just a small sample of what we have been and are up against. Its evident that many books written by previous academics are NOT approved for consideration. So we must at least question the ones that are. Yes, some truth has slipped through the censorship and we're searching for it, but imagine how much easier our task would be if we had access to those records that are not desired by TPTB.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 1, 2021)

Also, 'I have published work on the subject.' is basically an appeal to authority. Everyone who posts in this forum has 'published work on the subject' of history, after all


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

I looked at this Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs.  History: fiction or science? Volume 3. and it is almost entirely about the dating of the Almagest. Have the authors considered other documentary evidence that might conflict with their hypothesis?

I notice also here http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-3.pdf that the authors drop the ‘allegedly’ dates at 1540 onwards, so they seem to accept the publication dates given in printed books. Now this thread is about the dating of Venice, which was renowned for its printing industry. “Close to 250 publishers – both large and small – operated in the city during the 16th Century, resulting in the printing of at least 25,000 editions of books and making Venice the de-facto centre of European publishing.” The city that launched the publishing industry . 

Now it’s true that before the advent of printing there were only manuscripts, which were often not dated. But sometimes they were, and that gives us information that enables to date them.

For example, see the colophon to Walter Burley’s commentary on the Perihermenias, vat lat 2146 87r. “Completa est haec expositio 5a die mensis augusti anno domini 1337, et anno aetatis exponentis 62o”. “This exposition was completed on the 5th day of the month of August 1337, and in the 62nd year of the expositor’s age.” There is loads of stuff like this. Any hypothesis that contradicts the dating system that medievalists have put together, must address the evidence that they have given for that system.



Silveryou said:


> If you don't know anything about chronology then you should stick to your area of "expertise".



I didn’t say I didn’t know anything about chronology. I said I was not an ‘eminent expert’.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

This will settle any and all questions:

Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-studied and Explained"

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:

· The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's
· The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's
· Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.
· The Gospels were written in the 1500's.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 1, 2021)

I think I am going to set up a post with the top 10 arguments/topics/resources/researchers for history revisionism and new chronology, and everyone who comes here into this forum categorically defending the mainstream narrative without providing new arguments will be directed towards those central arguments, and will get asked to deconstruct the arguments before being allowed to contribute in other areas of the forum.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> This will settle any and all questions:
> 
> Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-studied and Explained"
> 
> ...



It is clear from Johnson’s work that he has no familiarity with the primary sources, i.e. the manuscripts, from the high middle ages.

For example here:



> Leland says that Richard Middleton (whose order is not named) was the author of certain commentaries on the Sentences, which had been published at Venice in the year 1509. To this same alleged author are set down "fourteen books on the Epistles of Paul"! Why were they not forthcoming? Here is another illustration of the fictitious way in which the Lists were drawn up, a few things published to justify their statements, and the appetite of the public perhaps whetted for more.
> Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-studied and Explained"



The 1509 edition is the one I possess, but there are three earlier editions, all printed in Venice, as follows.

*Commentum super quarto libro Sententiarum Petri Lombardi Venice: Christophorus Arnoldus, [about 1474] Also recorded as [about 1477]
*Commentum super quarto libro Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. Ed: Franciscus Gregorius, Venice: Dionysius Bertochus, 10 Nov. 1489
*Commentum super quarto libro Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. (Ed: Franciscus Gregorius), [Venice]: Bonetus Locatellus, for the heirs of Octavianus Scotus, 17 Dec. 1499
*In primum [-quartum] sententiarum questiones persubtilissime / tria recognita reconcinnataque quodlibeta, etc. [edited by F. Benzonus] Venice: Lazzaro de’ Soardi 1507-1509.

However, many of the early printed works were simply copies of manuscript versions. To create ‘critical editions’ of these texts, modern scholars are cautious of printed editions, which are thought to contain many errors, and they collate different manuscript versions in order to get as reliable a version as possible of the author’s thought. The

There are ample manuscript sources for Richard’s work:



> For a list of the manuscripts containing one or more of the four books of Richards commentary see Hocedez (1926, pp. 14-15) with additions by Stegmüller (1937, no. 4, p. 88-89), the latter recording some 43 manuscripts in European libraries and some 37 copies (one or more of the four books) in Italian collections (with some 80 manuscripts in Europe altogether).
> 
> Hocedez, E. Richard de Middleton. Sa vie, ses oeuvres, sa doctrine, Louvain, 1925.
> Stegmüller, F. Repertorium initiorum plurimorum in Sententias, Petri Lombardi commentariorum, Freiburg, Herder, 1937.
> https://www.textmanuscripts.com/tm-assets/tm-descriptions/tm0236-description.pdf



Note that Richard was a Franciscan.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

You have the audacity to challenge me on the new radical chronology of history subject?

New radical chronology of history (complete demonstration that the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 never occurred)

According to the official chronology and astronomy, the direction of Earth's rotation axis executes a slow precession with a period of approximately 26,000 years.

Therefore, in the year 325 e.n., official date for the Council of Nicaea, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 21 or December 22; in the year 968 e.n., on December 16; and in the year 1582, on December 11.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the superb work The Easter Issue, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the winter solstice in the year 968 e.n., for example must have fallen on December 21.

And, of course, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

New radical chronology of history (*4. When and where was Christ crucified/resurrected? Constantinople, some 250 years ago * section)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> You have the audacity to challenge me on the new radical chronology of history subject?



I merely commented that "It is clear from Johnson’s work that he has no familiarity with the primary sources, i.e. the manuscripts, from the high middle ages."


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

Johnson's The Pauline Epistles includes several distinguising proofs which show that no one in Europe before 1500 AD knew anything of the four Gospels (not to mention the epistles attributed to Paul).

Now, take a look at this:

"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

Eclipse Quotations - Part II


However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.

Let us imagine the protests which would have followed if the Vatican would have dared to say that the winter solstice in 1581-1582 occurred on December 11, given the precise fact that IT MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON DECEMBER 16. This means, of course, that the Papal Bull, dated 1582, was created much later in time, in fact at least after 1700 e.n., to give the impression of a "historical proof" of the axial precession hypothesis.

There is no other way around it: the most precise proofs that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the entire medieval and even ancient chronology was invented by both Scaliger and Petavius some centuries later.


Which will you choose? If the historical note from Leo the Deacon is correct, the dating of your manuscripts certainly is wrong. If it is not correct (a forgery) then so is each and every other document from the same period. Agreed?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> If the historical note from Leo the Deacon is correct, the dating of your manuscripts certainly are wrong. If it is not correct (a forgery) then so is each and every other document from the same period. Agreed?



Yes agreed. It cannot be that the dating of the manuscripts I am referring to is correct, and the historical note from Leo the Deacon is correct. One or the other must be incorrect.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I looked at this Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs. History: fiction or science? Volume 3. and it is almost entirely about the dating of the Almagest. Have the authors considered other documentary evidence that might conflict with their hypothesis?


Did you read 800 pages in one night? Have you considered answering my question about the non-existing scientific method used for ancient chronologies as well as that of Scaliger? If you can prove they in fact used the scientific method then I'm all ears.

By the way, @Grosseteste, you talked about your interest in a different point of view on history. Can you open a thread about your field of expertise, so that we can all enjoy a little bit of your research?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

Now, I am going to prove to you that the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus must have been created at least after 1,400 AD.

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter, or, the Paschal Cycle (2003)

Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.

Perpetual Easter Calculator: Julian/Gregorian Easter Sunday and Jewish Passover

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


Dr. G.V. Nosovsky:



> Ecclesiastical tradition, in accordance with the New Testament, tells that Christ was resurrected on March 25 on Sunday, on the next day after Passover, which, therefore, fell in that time on March 24 (Saturday). These are exactly the conditions used by Dionisius in his calculation of the date of the First Easter.





> Dionysius supposedly conducted all these arguments and calculations working with the Easter Book. Having discovered that in the contemporary year 563 (the year 279 of the Diocletian era) the First Easter conditions held, he made a 532-year shift back (the duration of the great indiction, the shift after which the Easter Book entirely recurs) and got the date for the First Easter. But he did not know that Passover (the 14th moon) could not be shifted by 532 years (because of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle) and made a mistake: "Dionysius failed, though he did not know that. Indeed, if he really supposed that the First Easter fell on March 25, 31 A.D., then he made a rough mistake as he extrapolated the inaccurate Metonian cycle to 28 previous cycles (that is, for 532 years: 28 x 19 = 532). In fact, Nisan 15, the Passover festival, in the year 31 fell not on Saturday, March 24, but on Tuesday, March 27!". [335, pg. 243: I.A. Klimishin, Calendar and Chronology, in Russian, Nauka, Moscow, 1985]





> That is a modern reconstruction of what Dionysius the Little did in the 6th century. It would be all right, but it presupposes that near Dionysius' date of 563 A.D. the 14th moon (Passover) really fell on March 24. It could be that Dionysius was not aware of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle and made the mistake shifting Passover from 563 to the same day of March in 31 A.D.
> 
> But he could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.





> *But in 563 Passover (the 14th moon) fell not on March 24, but on Sunday, March 25, that is, it coincided with Easter as determined by the Easter Book.
> 
> 
> As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.*





> Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century.* Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century.*



www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


Exiguus, the central pillar of the official historical chronology, could not have made such a colossal mistake UNLESS his works/biography were forged/falsified at least five centuries later in time.

In the official chronology, Bede, Syncellus, Scaliger, Blastares, and Petavius base their calculations on Exiguus' methods and data.

Dr. G.V. Nosovsky verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.

The Metonic cycle is valid for a period of 300 years.



> The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.



1095 + 300 = 1395

It is only after 1,400 AD that the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus were created.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> By the way, @Grosseteste, you talked about your interest in a different point of view on history. Can you open a thread about your field of expertise, so that we can all enjoy a little bit of your research?



Of course, perhaps later. I think I already pointed you to my book (with Prof Jack Zupko, Jack Zupko, BA, MA, PhD - Directory@UAlberta) on an early work of Scotus Duns Scotus on Time and Existence: The Questions on Aristotle's "on Interpretation": The Questions on Aristotle’s “On Interpretation”: Amazon.co.uk: John Duns Scotus, Edward Buckner, Jack Zupko: Books


sandokhan said:


> This will settle any and all questions:
> 
> Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-studied and Explained"
> 
> ...



Re "The Gospels were written in the 1500's". Let’s take an example, and stress that there are hundreds, possibly thousands more. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio Book I, Prologue Part 5 article 1: ““Quia in Ioan. 20: Haec scripta sunt ut credatis”- Agrees with John 20 HOLY BIBLE: John 20, Greek ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε, English “these things are written [in order] that you might believe.

The Ordinatio has been reliably dated to 1300 or shortly thereafter (more on that later, if you wish).It follows from what we agreed above that either the dating of the Ordinatio is wrong (and again, more later) or Johnson is wrong.


A Vatican Library manuscript is available online here DigiVatLib and a screenshot of the quotation from John is below.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

You must have missed my previous message: the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus were written at least after 1,400 AD.

You have must have missed my previous proof where the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

New radical chronology of history

These figures are based on Gauss' Easter formula the most accurate astronomical dating tool available.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> You must have missed my previous message: the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus were written at least after 1,400 AD.
> 
> You have must have missed my previous proof where the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:
> 
> ...



One thing at a time please. I am focusing entirely on Johnson's claim, cited by you, that the Gospels were written in the 1500s. The problem is clear: if the Gospels were written no earlier than the 1500s, no one can have quoted them before the 1500s. Makes sense?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

Exactly, one thing at a time. You brought up a reference, whose dating is annihilated by my references (dating of the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus, and the dating of the Council of Nicaea).


Grosseteste said:


> The Ordinatio has been reliably dated to 1300


Not anymore.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

@Grosseteste, just an explanation for you about this forum (this is my personal observations, so I am not talking for other people who might have a different point of view).

There are mainly two currents when talking about chronology and I am not saying that they are well defined and everyone here consciously pushes for one or the other. One "current" thinks that historical events are mostly true but misinterpreted or even faked due to the chronological error (this is generally my point of view), while the other "current" thinks that many ancient and even modern events simply never happened because they were invented (and I don't want to say more because ' don't want to misinterpret their thoughts). If there is a third one, I have not noticed...


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 1, 2021)

Personally I think the subject of dating and chronology is a minefield, one that I prefer to avoid. However, I am quite sad to see the aggression and arrogance on display in this thread. Someone said earlier that the OP was about Venice and yet it continues to venture further and further from that theme.

I also don't think it helps the non-mainstream argument to go quoting Wikipedia in its support.

Perhaps we could all calm down a bit and treat each other's points of view with respect on a friendly basis. The stolen history community really shouldn't become entrenched in its own dogma and then defend it at all costs, otherwise how is it any different to what we already have?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Exactly, one thing at a time. You brought up a reference, whose dating is annihilated by my references (dating of the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus, and the dating of the Council of Nicaea).
> 
> Not anymore.



OK let’s look at the dating of the Ordinatio. Scotus writes (Prologue Part 2)



> Confirmatur, quia secta iudaeorum non manet in vigore, sicut contra eos obicit Augustinus in illo sermone (dominica quarta de Adventu) ((Vos, inquam, convenio, o iudaei!)). Si obiciatur de permanentia sectae Mahometi, respondeo: illa incepit plusquam sexcentis annis post legem Christi, et in brevi, Domino volente, finietur, quia multum debilitata est anno Christi millesimo trecentesimo, et eius cultores multi mortui, et plurimi sunt fugati; et prophetia dicitur apud eos esse quod secta eorum est finienda.



That is:



> There is confirmation in that the sect of the Jews does not remain in vigor, as Augustine objects against them in the sermon [Ps.-Augustine, Sermon against Jews, Pagans, and Arians ch.11]: “Against you, I say, O Jews, I bring my charge!” If an objection be made about the permanence of the sect of Mohammed, I reply: that sect began *more than six hundred years after the law of Christ*, and in a short time, if the Lord will, it shall end, because it was much weakened *in the 1300th year of Christ*, and many of its worshippers are dead and very many put to flight; and a prophecy is said to exist among them that their sect must end.



Manuscript is below. This is not the only evidence for the dating. I worked on the dating (and authenticity) of Scotus’s earlier logical works at around 1295. We have separate evidence of the circumstances and date of his death (1308). We have the fact that Scotus is quoted verbatim by William of Ockham, whose birth and death date we can establish approximately (though not accurately, to be sure). Then there is Walter Burley who I quoted above, who tells us he was writing in 1337 at the age of 62.



Silveryou said:


> @Grosseteste, just an explanation for you about this forum (this is my personal observations, so I am not talking for other people who might have a different point of view).
> 
> There are mainly two currents when talking about chronology and I am not saying that they are well defined and everyone here consciously pushes for one or the other. One "current" thinks that historical events are mostly true but misinterpreted or even faked due to the chronological error (this is generally my point of view), while the other "current" thinks that many ancient and even modern events simply never happened because they were invented (and I don't want to say more because ' don't want to misinterpret their thoughts). If there is a third one, I have not noticed...



There are not ‘two currents’ in my field (medieval logic and theology). I cannot name a single person who would give the revisionist view any credence whatever. The hypothesis conflicts with pretty much _everything_ we know about the subject.

For those who subscribe to the non-mainstream revisionist view, the onus is to resolve the apparent contradictions between the conventional dating - which includes everything we know about the works of scholastics like Grosseteste, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham and hundreds of others.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> There are not ‘two currents’ in my field (medieval logic and theology). I cannot name a single person who would give the revisionist view any credence whatever. The hypothesis conflicts with pretty much _everything_ we know about the subject.
> 
> For those who subscribe to the non-mainstream revisionist view, the onus is to resolve the apparent contradictions between the conventional dating - which includes everything we know about the works of scholastics like Grosseteste, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham and hundreds of others.


The particular chronological order between A, B and C doen't mean that A happened in 600 BC, B in 330 AD and C in 1200 AD. I can agree about the order of A-B-C, not the time in which they happened.

It's really _not important _what medievalists think about chronology, since they are not chronologists themeselves and they work with the chronology they were provided with. If chronology changes, medievalists will find new ways to explain what happened.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Personally I think the subject of dating and chronology is a minefield


That is why you need to fly over this field using astronomy.



Grosseteste said:


> I worked on the dating (and authenticity) of Scotus’s earlier logical works at around 1295. We have separate evidence of the circumstances and date of his death (1308).


I have a much more famous historical figure from the same period: Matthew Vlastar (Matthew Blastares) surely contradicting your premises.



> Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.
> 
> Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century.





> EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR
> 
> It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.





> “There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (*= 725 AD *– Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= *743 AD – *Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. *The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March*” ([518]).


Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


The spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by manistream chronology.


Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).
Thesaurus Temporum, published by Joseph Scaliger, was based almost entirely on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus and Matthew Blastares.


You see, astronomical dating is foremost: it has precedence over any other considerations (documents, books).


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> That is:
> 
> 
> Manuscript is below. This is not the only evidence for the dating. I worked on the dating (and authenticity) of Scotus’s earlier logical works at around 1295. We have separate evidence of the circumstances and date of his death (1308). We have the fact that Scotus is quoted verbatim by William of Ockham, whose birth and death date we can establish approximately (though not accurately, to be sure). Then there is Walter Burley who I quoted above, who tells us he was writing in 1337 at the age of 62.


Sorry, but this explanation is entirely based on St. Augustine manuscript the earliest _copy_ of which is certainly not from the epoch in which he supposedly lived (unless you can prove otherwise). St. Augustine doesn't provide an explanation for his datings and the chronology he refers to is totally un-scientific and based entirely on tradition, unless you can prove otherwise. On the other hand Nosovsky has given a peculiar explantion you should at least read before going on... A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 1, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Sorry, but this explanation is entirely based on St. Augustine manuscript the earliest _copy_ of which is certainly not from the epoch in which he supposedly lived (unless you can prove otherwise). St. Augustine doesn't provide an explanation for his datings and the chronology he refers to is totally un-scientific and based entirely on tradition, unless you can prove otherwise. On the other hand Nosovsky has given a peculiar explantion you should at least read before going on... A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating



The key part of that document is where it says '1300'. Scotus says he is writing in the year 1300. I will look at the Fomenko argument later (I have to do something else now).



> [Sandokhan] You see, astronomical dating is foremost: it has precedence over any other considerations (documents, books).


On the contrary, we medievalists say that documentary evidence has precedence over all else. How will we resolve that one?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The key part of that document is where it says '1300'. Scotus says he is writing in the year 1300. I will look at the Fomenko argument later (I have to do something else now).
> 
> 
> On the contrary, we medievalists say that documentary evidence has precedence over all else. How will we resolve that one?


Sorry, I meant Scotus, not Augustine.


Grosseteste said:


> On the contrary, we medievalists say that documentary evidence has precedence over all else. How will we resolve that one?


Chronology has obviously precedence. If Plato comes after Cartesius, I think you should re-write the entire philosophical corpus, I think! (and I am not saying that Plato comes after Cartesius. It was just to make a clear point).
But there is obviously an inner chronology inside historical manuscripts which can tell the _*order*_ of events (A-B-C) and that _should _be reliable. The datings given are un-scientific though, unless you or someone else can prove the opposite (with _*real proofs*_, I mean documents and manuscripts which show the scientific method applied for determining the correct chronology. This should be easy for those who study ancient books and know many languages!!!)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 2, 2021)

I have started a project to investigate the conflict between astro dating methods, and conventional methods. This may take some time, as it requires accessing papal records.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting article by my colleague Henrik Lagerlund.

There was no such thing as ‘Renaissance philosophy’ – Henrik Lagerlund | Aeon Essays



> The basic elements of study for the historian are singular events of linguistic utterances. These come to the historian usually through manuscripts or books, which contain the expressions of ideas or thoughts of the individual philosophers. For the historian of philosophy, humans or places are referred to only in so far as they are connected to utterances. They can hence figure in explanations of these utterances.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 2, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> and conventional methods


What are these methods? Were they used by whom? There is no need to start projects to answer these questions, I think. IF there was a method, this should be known to scholars.

So the question remains. What kind of scientific method did Scaliger and his successors use in their work?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 2, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> What are these methods? Were they used by whom? There is no need to start projects to answer these questions, I think. IF there was a method, this should be known to scholars.
> 
> So the question remains. What kind of scientific method did Scaliger and his successors use in their work?



Conventional method = method used by historians such as myself. Principally (1) establish relative dates between texts by establishing which was written first. And (2) use the dates (cautiously) given on the manuscripts themselves.

On the project: I am accepting the hypothesis that the Gospels were written after 1500, as some revisionists suggest. Then I want to understand which documents are incorrectly dated as a result. 

For example, Scotus explicitly says he is writing in the year 1300. But he quotes the gospels in a number of places _in the same document_. It immediately follows that the date he gives is incorrect.

I want to see how many of the 100,000 odd manuscripts in the Vatican library have been incorrectly dated - by accident or design - on the assumption that the revisionist dating is correct.

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 2, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Conventional method = method used by historians such as myself. Principally (1) establish relative dates between texts by establishing which was written first. And (2) use the dates (cautiously) given on the manuscripts themselves.


It is implied that the method should give _absolute_ dates, not the relative order of events, about which I am confidnt enough to say that you are pretty much capable of doing it, since it is your area of expertise. So yes, they are _both_ methods, but to obtain different things: absolute dates in the first case, the relative order of events in the second.


Grosseteste said:


> On the project: I am accepting the hypothesis that the Gospels were written after 1500, as some revisionists suggest. Then I want to understand which documents are incorrectly dated as a result.
> 
> For example, Scotus explicitly says he is writing in the year 1300. But he quotes the gospels in a number of places _in the same document_. It immediately follows that the date he gives is incorrect.
> 
> ...


It did make sense from the start to me. As I said, there are two currents here, which you are now grouping into one, as if the other doesn't exist. I would not be confident to say that the Gospels were written after 1500 and I'm sure you will find plenty of documents proving the opposite.

Just to be clear, the problem with chronology, at least for me, is mostly with ancient history, while I think the medieval one should be more precise. But the problem is that if ancient history was misdated, then those events happened in a more recent timeframe and this would necessarily modify our point of view on the entire historical corpus


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 2, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It is implied that the method should give _absolute_ dates, not the relative order of events, about which I am confidnt enough to say that you are pretty much capable of doing it, since it is your area of expertise. So yes, they are _both_ methods, but to obtain different things: absolute dates in the first case, the relative order of events in the second.
> 
> It did make sense from the start to me. As I said, there are two currents here, which you are now grouping into one, as if the other doesn't exist. I would not be confident to say that the Gospels were written after 1500 and I'm sure you will find plenty of documents proving the opposite.
> 
> Just to be clear, the problem with chronology, at least for me, is mostly with ancient history, while I think the medieval one should be more precise. But the problem is that if ancient history was misdated, then those events happened in a more recent timeframe and this would necessarily modify our point of view on the entire historical corpus



Right, but I was rising to Sandokhan's challenge that he has proved the gospels written after 1500. Fomenko makes similar (though not identical) claims.

I agree there is a real problem with ancient history. There is an academic consensus that the chronology given in the Hebrew Bible does not reflect the likely reality. But medieval historians look at, er, the medieval  period.

On relative vs absolute, the only absolute method is the astronomical method, which medievalists don't rely on. But we can pick a date as an anchor then work back via the relative method. Also, as I said above, we have documents which give dates.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 2, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I agree there is a real problem with ancient history. There is an academic consensus that the chronology given in the Hebrew Bible does not reflect the likely reality. But medieval historians look at, er, the medieval period.
> 
> On relative vs absolute, the only absolute method is the astronomical method, which medievalists don't rely on. But we can pick a date as an anchor then work back via the relative method. Also, as I said above, we have documents which give dates.


To be more precise, I don't think that ancient and early medieval dates can be really proven even with the "working back" method. Fomenko has provided many clues about the possibility that ancient and "Hebrew" history happened during the middle-ages but was backdated to a distant past for various reasons.

By the way, I appreciate Fomenko's reasearch but I have many doubts about his overall reconstruction, which I find a little bit too biased concerning the opposition between the West and East. The same bias that I see in conventional chronology, which spawned from the ecclesiastic world with a complete monopoly n the subject. In particular, starting from Scaliger's epoch, a series of "new historians" began their work to create a mythology out of what in the middle-ages was believed as historical truth. All of this in a context of book burnings, witch huntings and wars of religion.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Right, but I was rising to Sandokhan's challenge that he has proved the gospels written after 1500.


That's the new chronology of history.

I embrace the new radical chronology of history: the bible was written in the period 1780-1800 AD.

Christoph Pfister has investigated each and every castle, cathedral in Switzerland. His conclusion: before 1700 AD there was no human presence on the present day territory of Switzerland, the printing press was invented after 1730 AD, all castles and cathedrals were built after 1750 AD.

New radical chronology of history (Christoph Pfister's work)

Here is a most extraordinary fact.







Jerusalem quae in Bosphorus est possidebit civitates Austri.

http://www.johncunyus.com/files/The_Book_of_Obadiah.pdf



> Obadiah 1:20 "et transmigratio exercitus huius filiorum Israhel omnia Chananeorum usque ad Saraptham et transmigratio Hierusalem quae in Bosforo est possidebit civitates austri"



Jerome, author of translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) used the word Bosphorus in Obadiah 1:20.



> Et transmigratio exercitus hujus Filiorum Izraelu omnia loca Chananæorum usque ad Sareptam: et transmigratio Jerozolima, quæ in Bosphoro est, possidebit civitates Austri.



The same word appears in one English translation as well ( Douay–Rheims), from 1610.



> And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, all the places of the Chanaanites even to Sarepta: and the captivity of Jerusalem that is in Bosphorus, shall possess the cities of the south.



Douay-Rheims Bible, Abdias (Obadiah) Chapter 1

In most later translations, the word ‘Bosphorus’ was replaced with ‘Sepharade’. It is supposedly a place of ‘uncertain location’.


----------



## wise (Jun 3, 2021)

Not uncertain location. Sepharade jews have migrated to Bosphorus (Istanbul) after immigrated from Spain. As I mentioned earlier in another article, a crypto Jewish community in Beykoz uses the secret Kabbala teachings. That group could be this group. If this determination is true so Sepharade may be Beykoz.

I have raised this issue before and told you that Jesus was crucified in Beykoz (a district in Istanbul), but I think you did not take this into account enough.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> That's the new chronology of history.
> 
> I embrace the new radical chronology of history: the bible was written in the period 1780-1800 AD.



So every single document I have studied in my specialist area is either mistakenly dated, or is a forgery?



> The same word appears in one English translation as well ( Douay–Rheims), from 1610.



How so, if the Bible was written later than 1610?



> Jerusalem quae in Bosphorus est possidebit civitates Austri.


You have quoted out of context. “quae” does not refer back to ‘Jerusalem’ but to ‘transmigratio’. The whole passage is “transmigratio Jerusalem, quæ in Bosphoro est, possidebit civitates austri.”

Jerome was translating the Septuagint, which has Εφραθα for the Hebrew bis-p̄ā-raḏ. I am not expert in Hebrew at all, but the concordance says it probably means ‘place of exile’. Thus “the diaspora from Jerusalem who are in Exile will possess the towns of the Negev”.

[EDIT] Indeed the document you linked to has the correct translation: "Jerusalem’s captivity, which is in the Bosphorus, will possess the south’s cities." I.e. it's the captivity or diaspora or migration which is in the bis-p̄ā-raḏ, not Jerusalem. Obviously.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 3, 2021)

Can you imagine the outrage and the uproar which would have followed had the book of Obadiah featured that quote for some 1,200 years? It says clearly: Jerusalem which is in the Bosphorus.

Does this look like Jerusalem to you, or more like Constantinople?








Constantinople and the crucifixion:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...830_-_Bavarian_State_Painting_Collections.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia....-Frosch_Totentafel_Leidensweg_Christi_VLM.jpg





Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:



> Incidentally it is interesting to look carefully at the representation of the crucifixion. It appears that in many paintings, icons and frescoes Christ’s crucifixion is shown with a background of either a big sea strait or a wide river. Besides the artists were painting in particular either a strait or a river, but by no means a sea, fig.5. So, by depicting water, the opposite shore was always shown [5v1], ch.14. As we understand it now, it could not have been otherwise, as the Beykoz mountain is situated right on the shore of the wide Bosphorus. From there can be seen very clearly the European shore of the strait, where the centre of Constantinople is situated.





> Any artist, had a more or less accurate recollection of the original story, would have depicted the Bosphorus strait as a significant part of the landscape, which served as a backdrop to the site of Christ’s crucifixion.



Christ entering Constantinople:





Pilate wearing a turban:





Original quote from the epistle to the Galatians:










Jerusalem = Constantinople/Hagia Sophia = Temple of Solomon





Wayback Machine (pages 349 - 351, also includes a preface written by Garry Kasparov)


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Wasn't this thread about chronology? How can someone answer when submerged with data that have nothing to do with the subject at hand?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 3, 2021)

We are trying to get to the bottom of this question: when was the Bible actually written? 

You are right, I won't interfere anymore.

A note to the readers: read the links in the Christoph Pfister archive, you will find it very interesting.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Can you imagine the outrage and the uproar which would have followed had the book of Obadiah featured that quote for some 1,200 years? It says clearly: Jerusalem which is in the Bosphorus.



No it doesn't. It says "*transmigratio *Jerusalem, *quæ* in Bosphoro est”. And in any case that is Latin translated from the Septuagint Greek, not the Hebrew. Got it?

Then you link to bunch of paintings made around the Renaissance where the artist has simply invented the scenery. How is that relevant.



Silveryou said:


> Wasn't this thread about chronology? How can someone answer when submerged with data that have nothing to do with the subject at hand?



Well it is about chronology of the crucifixion, so Sandokhan is not off-topic. Rather, he is completely wrong.

[EDIT] For the record, the Hebrew is "wə-ḡā-luṯ yə-rū-šā-lim ’ă-šer bis-p̄ā-raḏ; yir-šū ’êṯ ‘ā-rê han-ne-ḡeḇ."


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> A note to the readers: read the links in the Christoph Pfister archive, you will find it very interesting.


I've read it. Interesting? Yes. Do they _prove _anything? No.


Grosseteste said:


> Well it is about chronology of the crucifixion, so Sandokhan is not off-topic. Rather, he is completely wrong.


I commented because I know where we are going. Posting hundreds of external links is the best way to lose our heads and we will soon talk about unicorns and flat earth.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

It might be worth discussing these paintings that appear to revisionist historians. For example, the one above, Calvary, by Pseudo Jan Wellens de Cock, c. 1520. Jan Wellens (or whoever is imitating him) hasn’t seen the crucifixion, and is unlikely to have visited Palestine, so has to represent the scene as best as he can. Why on earth would we suppose that he is copying something that he has actually seen? These pictures prove absolutely nothing.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> It might be worth discussing these paintings that appear to revisionist historians.


The discussion starts with chronology though. Conventional chronology puts these events in a very distant past. Since conventional chronology is not scientific (unless someone can prove otherwise), then the revisionists, on the base of more precise astronomical calculations for eclipses, can infer that these artists knew better their own history, painting a more reliable landscape for those events.

There would be much more to say on this subject, but I want to stress out that the main issue is chronology. Everything seems absolutely explained when one looks at dates without asking _how _they knew the events happened in those times. And the answer is that there is no scientific method involved to determine the absolute dates. The "work back" method is certainly useful for reconstructing the order of events (if the sources are considered reliable, which opens another issue regarding the existing sources disregarded because against the official narrative), but the manuscripts themselves are copies of copies of copies and if absolute dates change, that order changes too.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Everything seems absolutely explained when one looks at dates without asking _how _they knew the events happened in those times. And the answer is that there is no scientific method involved to determine the absolute dates.



The first question, as I have said a few times, is how we know when a document was written or printed. In the case of printed material, we know from the date given on the front. Revisionists say that these dates are faked, without giving any convincing reason why they are faked.

In the case of papal records, legal documents, deeds of transfer and so on, again there are dates. Legal documents are very precise about that, because a mistake means transferring title when it should not have been transferred. Again, we can never rule out forgery, but then a convincing reason needs to be given why the forgery was made. Plus, we can only conclusively prove forgery when we have documentation that proves it, meaning we have to rely on that latter documentation.



> on the base of more precise astronomical calculations for eclipses"



Be careful. We can calculate precisely the dates of eclipses. But we still have to prove that the _document which mentions the eclipse_ is accurate, so it ALL comes down to documentation in the end.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The first question, as I have said a few times, is how we know when a document was written or printed. In the case of printed material, we know from the date given on the front. Revisionists say that these dates are faked, without giving any convincing reason why they are faked.


As I said, you are conflating all revisionists in one group. I would not be too bold in saying that printed books were not publshed in the given dates.

Here the problem is not, as I said, the internal order of events found in documents, expecially when they pertain to the epoch of printing press. The problem arises with books preceding that epoch, which have come to us in the form of copies, and, more than anything, the books/documents pertaining to epochs preceding 1000 AD (more or less). There is no possibility to connect the middle-ages to "late antiquity" through the "work back" method. The only clue should be the datings given in the medieval texts themselves or the more recent chronology established by Scaliger. But those dates are based on tradition and highly contradictory, while recent astronomical redatings show that the ancient eclipses happened in the middle-ages.


Grosseteste said:


> Be careful. We can calculate precisely the dates of eclipses. But we still have to prove that the _document which mentions the eclipse_ is accurate, so it ALL comes down to documentation in the end.


Nope. The actual calculations have been disproven. Historians are not mathematicians and the analysis of Fomenko has not been addressed by anyone. Fomenko also shows how astronomers themselves have disproven the original calculations made by Kepler.

By the way, if the documents which mention the eclipses atre inaccurate (and this is news to me - it seems historians are beginning to address the issue only after Fomenko), then the chronological implant crumbles down in one night.


----------



## wild heretic (Jun 3, 2021)

My personal belief is that the biblical events occurred in the middle ages.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Here the problem is not, as I said, the internal order of events found in documents, expecially when they pertain to the epoch of printing press. The problem arises with books preceding that epoch, which have come to us in the form of copies, and, more than anything, the books/documents pertaining to epochs preceding 1000 AD (more or less).



Papal records exist back to 1198. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173: The Parker Chronicle is dated, although the dates before its compilation, probably the mid 800s, are clearly reconstructions.




> But those dates are based on tradition and highly contradictory, while recent astronomical redatings show that the ancient eclipses happened in the middle-ages.



Not when the dates are concurrent with the time of writing, as with most of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. I am going to check whether any of Bede’s documents are dated.



> The actual calculations have been disproven. Historians are not mathematicians and the analysis of Fomenko has not been addressed by anyone.



Perhaps you could explain a little more how these actual calculations work. I assume that we take some ‘ancient’ document giving the positions of the stars, then we calculate some date consistent with those positions. (Forgive me if I have misunderstood). But ancient astronomy was not accurate at all. The Arabs developed better instruments for measuring angular distance, but that was not until the 800s or 900s (from memory).


wild heretic said:


> My personal belief is that the biblical events occurred in the middle ages.


The evidence for which is?


----------



## wild heretic (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The evidence for which is?



Medieval Maps and the picture bibles of the Middle Ages.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Here is an example (from Bede, _Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum_, Cotton MS Tiberius C II 157r) of where the date given (DCCXXXIIII 734) is contemporaneous with the authorship. The whole manuscript is a series of dates, of course, but I am focusing on the dates which are either contemporary with the author, or which are recently past.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 3, 2021)

You cannot invoke anything attributed to Bede. Earlier, it was proven that the works ascribed to Dionysius Exiguus were written at least after 1400 AD. In the official chronology of history, Bede based his Easter cycle on the calculations provided by Exiguus.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Papal records exist back to 1198. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173: The Parker Chronicle is dated, although the dates before its compilation, probably the mid 800s, are clearly reconstructions.





Grosseteste said:


> Not when the dates are concurrent with the time of writing, as with most of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. I am going to check whether any of Bede’s documents are dated.


You are probably implying here that Papal records are dated through the "work back " method I suppose. Fine by me. But the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (of which I suppose no one can really say it's an original document) are dated through methods entirely based on the unproven conventional chronology.
The dates are givan a posteriori, therefore are based upon an un-scientific tradition.


Grosseteste said:


> Perhaps you could explain a little more how these actual calculations work.


I gave you links to read.


Grosseteste said:


> I assume that we take some ‘ancient’ document giving the positions of the stars, then we calculate some date consistent with those positions. (Forgive me if I have misunderstood). But ancient astronomy was not accurate at all. The Arabs developed better instruments for measuring angular distance, but that was not until the 800s or 900s (from memory).


This is precisely the issue Fomenko exposed.

As I said, historians are not mathematicians and the analysis of Fomenko has not been addressed by anyone. Fomenko shows how astronomers themselves have disproven the original calculations made by Kepler.
By the way, if the documents which mention the eclipses are inaccurate (and this is news to me - it seems historians are beginning to address the issue only after Fomenko), then the chronological implant crumbles down in one night.

It seems we have come to the point in which there is nothing else to say. If you are unaware of the many problems exposed by recentists in conventional chronology, you should read those in the first place. This research by Nosovsky is a glimpse of what they have found. If you want you can read it, and if you don't want I understand your position.

A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


Grosseteste said:


> Here is an example (from Bede, _Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum_, Cotton MS Tiberius C II 157r) of where the date given (DCCXXXIIII 734) is contemporaneous with the authorship. The whole manuscript is a series of dates, of course, but I am focusing on the dates which are either contemporary with the author, or which are recently past.


This is the same problem over and over again @Grosseteste! Upon which scientific chronological method were the dates _inside _the text given?

 Read this before continuing, please.
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Read this before continuing, please.
> A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


If you think that my references should not be posted here, why then do you include them in your messages?


sandokhan said:


> www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is the same problem over and over again @Grosseteste! Upon which scientific chronological method were the dates _inside _the text given?



Bede gives a series of dates of events that occurred within his lifetime, in the anno domini format. I know you are going to question whether these are astronomically correct. But you accept that they are correct relative to one another? For example, Bede writes the year 710 for event A. Then a year passes - you don't need science to understand the seasons, right? - and event B happens so he records it as happening in year 711. Then another year, another event and so on throughout his life. So we have a series of events correlated with numbers.

Now assuming we have documents by other writers with a similar series of years that overlap, then we can build up the sequence until we reach papal records. Plus there are many many other documents which also have dates (of coronations, wars and so on).



> Read this before continuing, please.



That may take some time and understanding.



sandokhan said:


> You cannot invoke anything attributed to Bede. Earlier, it was proven that the works ascribed to Dionysius Exiguus were written at least after 1400 AD. In the official chronology of history, Bede based his Easter cycle on the calculations provided by Exiguus.



My references to Bede were entirely unconnected with his calculations on the Easter cycle.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> If you think that my references should not be posted here, why then do you include them in your messages?


I never said you should not post here. I said you should stick to the issue. If you post a good link with good specifics about the pages to read I think it's good to re-post it. I will mention you the next time 


Grosseteste said:


> Bede gives a series of dates of events that occurred within his lifetime, in the anno domini format. I know you are going to question whether these are astronomically correct. But you accept that they are correct relative to one another? For example, Bede writes the year 710 for event A. Then a year passes - you don't need science to understand the seasons, right? - and event B happens so he records it as happening in year 711. Then another year, another event and so on throughout his life. So we have a series of events correlated with numbers.


I already told you that I have nothing against the inner relation between dates. The problem is about absolute dates and the fact that these documents are copies of copies of copies.
The link I (and *@sandokhan*) gave you explains why the dates reported in the text are absurd.


Grosseteste said:


> My references to Bede were entirely unconnected with his calculations on the Easter cycle.


You cannot disconnect those things though, because Bede was the one who is said to have resumed Dionysius' Anno Domini from an apparent oblivion.

By the way @Grosseteste, I promise! The link we are giving you is not a third rate research by a delusional individual with mental issues! You should really read it (at least the suggested pages)... and also find the eventual mistakes! Why not?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I already told you that I have nothing against the inner relation between dates. The problem is about absolute dates and the fact that these documents are copies of copies of copies.
> The link I (and *@sandokhan*) gave you explains why the dates reported in the text are absurd.



“Copies of copies” is not a problem, because we have sets of manuscripts which we can compare together for accuracy, and to determine which is a copy of which. Besides, they must be copies of _something_, right?

You also ignored the point I made about overlap. So we have internal evidence of a series of dates. But these will overlap. Bede writes “AT this time, that is, in the year of our Lord 605, the blessed Pope Gregory, after having most gloriously governed the Roman apostolic see thirteen years, six months, and ten days, died, and was translated to the eternal see of the heavenly kingdom.” 605 is Bede’s date, but that will overlap with other records about that pope, so with enough different but overlapping records we can construct a complete sequence.



> By the way @Grosseteste, I promise! The link we are giving you is not a third rate research by a delusional individual with mental issues! You should really read it (at least the suggested pages)... and also find the eventual mistakes! Why not?


Fomenko has a bad reputation among historians. Remember he never trained as a historian, but as a mathematician.

You will object that being a mathematician is not a bad thing. Perhaps, but one of his methods, namely using correlation, is very bad. E.g. this http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img157.pdf where one set of events is arbitrarily correlated with another set of events. (1) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, then got married, then ruled for another 3 years then died, (2) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, or perhaps 6 years, then got married, then ruled for another 1-3 years then died". Ah right, so X MUST be the same person as Y. Even though they had different names, lived in different countries etc. Also he ignores all the wealth of historical detail that distinguishes X from Y. This is terrible, even terrible statistics.

It would take me time to investigate his work thoroughly. His style and presentation – perhaps this is the result of bad translation – is atrocious. Disconnected and random observations, no references to sources that I could find – the online version is impossible to read, and an apparent reliance on secondary sources.

[EDIT] On the overlap point, see the page below from "The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English", Ian Wood, 
Speculum Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1994).

The point I am making is that as well as Bede's record of events, we have Pope Gregory's register, which is a separate record. This is how historians do it. We go to primary sources (not secondary, as Fomenko appears to have done), as independent as we can find (i.e. so that one document is NOT a copy of the other) and try to get to the truth.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> “Copies of copies” is not a problem, because we have sets of manuscripts which we can compare together for accuracy, and to determine which is a copy of which. Besides, they must be copies of _something_, right?


Yes. And we don't have that something. That is the issue.


Grosseteste said:


> You also ignored the point I made about overlap. So we have internal evidence of a series of dates. But these will overlap. Bede writes “AT this time, that is, in the year of our Lord 605, the blessed Pope Gregory, after having most gloriously governed the Roman apostolic see thirteen years, six months, and ten days, died, and was translated to the eternal see of the heavenly kingdom.” 605 is Bede’s date, but that will overlap with other records, so with enough different but overlapping records we can construct a complete sequence.


It's not that I have ignored it. The problem, I repeat myself, regards absolute dates. If absolute dates are different then the dates reported in these copies of copies of copies without the original assume another _value _that must be evaluated in the light of the correct datings.


Grosseteste said:


> Fomenko has a bad reputation among historians. Remember he never trained as a historian, but as a mathematician.


I know that. I also know that historians are not trained in chronology (a branch of mathematics) and have a bad reputation among mathematicians.


Grosseteste said:


> You will object that being a mathematician is not a bad thing. Perhaps, but one of his methods, namely using correlation, is very bad. E.g. this http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img157.pdf where one set of events is arbitrarily correlated with another set of events. (1) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, then got married, then ruled for another 3 years then died, (2) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, or perhaps 6 years, then got married, then ruled for another 1-3 years then died". Ah right, so X MUST be the same person as Y. Even though they had different names, lived in different countries etc. Also he ignores all the wealth of historical detail that distinguishes X from Y. This is terrible, even terrible statistics.


This is just a glimpse of the methods he has adopted to analyse the historical records. And it is generally used to prove his inconsistency. But the only thing that really proves is the bias historians have towards what they consider an external interference (and also their lack of mathematical skill, since no one has proved him wrong in his field). The example you give is a pure misconception that I frequently read. It is not worth to explain to you the error you are doing in your comment because everything is explained in his books, if someone has the patience to read them, of course!


Grosseteste said:


> It would take me time to investigate his work thoroughly. His style and presentation – perhaps this is the result of bad translation – is atrocious. Disconnected and random observations, no references to sources that I could find – the online version is impossible to read, and an apparent reliance on secondary sources.


No one asks you to do that. If you want to read the simple link we have given you (a mere 15 pages) you will see something new to open your mind a little bit. As for the bad translation I agree with you, the rest I think is up to your lack of will, since where there's no interest there's no gaining.

In the end @Grosseteste, I think we have reached the end. Here is the link we have suggested to you. No need of headhaches doing complicate researches. If you want to read it we can comment it afterward, ok?
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> In the end @Grosseteste, I think we have reached the end. Here is the link we have suggested to you. No need of headhaches doing complicate researches. If you want to read it we can comment it afterward, ok?
> A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)



OK, a deal, I will aim to read that, best efforts basis. I feel you haven't really taken my points fully on board, though.

[EDIT] I read through the pages you asked, but don't entirely follow the logic. Also, I see no conclusion. According to other sources he and Fomenko used astronomical methods to calculate that Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD.

I would like to start from there. If Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD, what texts must be false in order for that date to be true?

For example, any text that discusses any aspect of Christian doctrine must be dated after 1185. Do you agree?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> OK, a deal, I will aim to read that, best efforts basis. I feel you haven't really taken my points fully on board, though.


I think I have. I trust you when you say that historians have reconstructed history based upon documents: the opposite would be absurd to me. The problem is the dates contained in documents as well as a hundred other things explained by recentists.

By the way, as I already said, I don't think Fomenko is always right. I am not a fanatic. But the problems he poses are real and should be addressed in a proper manner and taken seriously, I think. It is really hard to understand his overall analysis at first glance though. And his reconstruction is not convincing to me.

Read that research by Nosovsky. I think it's worth the time spent


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think I have. I trust you when you say that historians have reconstructed history based upon documents: the opposite would be absurd to me. The problem is the dates contained in documents as well as a hundred other things explained by recentists.
> 
> Read that research by Nosovsky. I think it's worth the time spent



Our posts crossed, see above. But you haven't explained why the dates in documents should be a problem, given you accept that the dates are internally consistent. Perhaps I haven't explained the problem you face sufficiently clearly. In fact, it's obvious I haven't explained myself well enough.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 3, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> But you haven't explained why the dates in documents should be a problem, given you accept that the dates are internally consistent.


They are a problem in the light of the real absolute dates found in papers such as the one by Nosovsky.


Grosseteste said:


> I read through the pages you asked, but don't entirely follow the logic. Also, I see no conclusion.


Did you really read it from start to end? I am impressed. You are very talented.


Grosseteste said:


> According to other sources he and Fomenko used astronomical methods to calculate that Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD.
> 
> I would like to start from there. If Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD, what texts must be false in order for that date to be true?
> 
> For example, any text that discusses any aspect of Christian doctrine must be dated after 1185. Do you agree?


Sorry, but it is useless to talk about the hundreds of things in their books. We should stick to the link I gave you, if you want. It proves that the Council of Nicaea could not happen in 325 AD. Can you disprove him?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It proves that the Council of Nicaea could not happen in 325 AD. Can you disprove him?



“Can I disprove him” – no, but I cannot prove him either, because I cannot follow his proof, nor am I clear what he thinks follows from what he says. 

I will try again when I have more time. I did find this discussion https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf  by Florin Diacu useful, but it was the only one I could find outside of crank websites.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> “Can I disprove him” – no, but I cannot prove him either, because I cannot follow his proof, nor am I clear what he thinks follows from what he says.
> 
> I will try again when I have more time. I did find this discussion https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf  by Florin Diacu useful, but it was the only one I could find outside of crank websites.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to discuss.


The conclusion to the article _Calendar Reform and the Council of Nicaea _from the link you provided says: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

I agree with this conclusion. Many reasonings behind Fomenko/Nosovsky's work seem to be correct. But for whatever reason historians don't want to deal with it and as a consequence Fomenko is now considered (wrongly) an historian himself. The two worlds shoud cooperate and, I'm sorry to say, historians have to move forward, in every sense!

It's been nice to speak to you. Hope to see you again on the forum.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The conclusion to the article _Calendar Reform and the Council of Nicaea _from the link you provided says: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."
> 
> I agree with this conclusion. Many reasonings behind Fomenko/Nosovsky's work seem to be correct. But for whatever reason historians don't want to deal with it and as a consequence Fomenko is now considered (wrongly) an historian himself. The two worlds shoud cooperate and, I'm sorry to say, historians have to move forward, in every sense!
> 
> It's been nice to speak to you. Hope to see you again on the forum.



I raised a question about the Easter dating on a private forum mostly used by academic historians. I referred to the article by Florin Diacu to endow it with, er, some respectability.

Let's see what they say, and happy to report back. One of them is a distinguished expert on Arabic philosophy of the early middle ages, and knows the subject backwards. I will be interested in his thoughts.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 4, 2021)

Refer them to the leading authority in the world on the subject, Dr. G. Nosovsky, this article:

Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession

Now, copy the first three messages which actually comprise Nosovsky's article into a pdf file, so that the FE address will not show up, and upload that pdf for the private forum.

The other article you mentioned is nowhere near Nosovsky's level of expertise on the subject.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Refer them to the leading authority in the world on the subject, Dr. G. Nosovsky, this article:
> 
> Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
> 
> ...


Please!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

I think best not to overburden them with 'stuff'. The question I am asking them is how their view of their subject would change on the assumption that there is a missing 300 years of history somewhere.

First reply:



> If Boethius had been writing around the time of the Carolingian Renaissance then Justinian the Great and Charlemagne would have been contemporaries, but Charlemagne was was contemporary with Irene of Athens, and there were about ten Byzantine rulers between Justinian and her, so we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era.



You are going to get a lot of objections like this. Which is why no historians take revisionism seriously. (Just telling it like it is).


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> You are going to get a lot of objections like this. Which is why no historians take revisionism seriously. (Just telling it like it is).


This is why historians are not prepared to reply to Fomenko. As Florin Diacu said: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

The problem is that chronology affects history. So the opinion of historians on the subject is un-scientific. This is just not their job!

Nice to have spoken to you though


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is why historians are not prepared to reply to Fomenko. As Florin Diacu said: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."
> 
> The problem is that chronology affects history. So the opinion of historians on the subject is un-scientific. This is just not their job!
> 
> Nice to have spoken to you though



The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that? 

Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions. 

No one here has attempted that. To the objection "we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era", you simply have ignored the problem. But this is your problem, not ours.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that?
> 
> Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions.
> 
> No one here has attempted that. To the objection "we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era", you simply have ignored the problem. But this is your problem, not ours.


I think you have not understood the question: I will repeat again.

Here is the scientific proof that the Council of Nicaea could not happen the year it is commonly believed to have happened. It is on YOU to demonstrate the opposite. If you are not capable or you don't want to do it, it's not a problem. Just please don't go on with the same concepts over and over again.

Here is the link with the un-challenged scientific demonstration, CONFIRMED by Florin Diacu.
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think you have not understood the question: I will repeat again.
> 
> Here is the scientific proof that the Council of Nicaea could not happen the year it is commonly believed to have happened. It is on YOU to demonstrate the opposite. If you are not capable or you don't want to do it, it's not a problem. Just please don't go on with the same concepts over and over again.
> 
> ...



No, once again it is for challenger theories to explain the contradictions that arise from their 'demonstrations'. You need to persuade us. We don't need to persuade you of anything.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> No, once again it is for challenger theories to explain the contradictions that arise from their 'demonstrations'. You need to persuade us. We don't need to persuade you of anything.


No one needs to persuade you. No one cares to do it. Florin Diacu, mentioned _by you_, has already told you what you should do. He has done it in a polite manner and now it is up to YOU.

I hope you will not go on and on with the same poor arguments. It seems the old @Grosseteste is making space to a new fundamentalist one.

If you want to discuss of chronology we start from here: A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 4, 2021)

Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn's best work, one of top archaeologists in the world, demonstrating that the assumed historical period 2,100 - 600 BC never existed:

THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT HISTORY


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that?
> 
> Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions.



That's bullshit.

You forget that you are a guest in a forum with a certain consensus. It is up to you to read up about this consensus and challenge it.

So in your own words, since in the context of this forum the revisionist position is the accepted one, it is up to you to challenge it.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 4, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> That's bullshit.



I have tried to be polite.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

You are very polite, but also very ripetitive. It seems you don't want to address the main issue. We are talking about chronology, so mentioning some historian is useless.

Florin Diacu already told you what to do:
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 4, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I have tried to be polite.



Well, at lest there's an academic context behind the word bullshit, thanks to Harry Frankfurt:

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more excessive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled — whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others — to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant.​


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 4, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> So in your own words, since in the context of this forum the revisionist position is the accepted one, it is up to you to challenge it.


In the context of academia the "challenger" is simply ignored, as Florin Diacu has calmly told to historians: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 4, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn's best work, one of top archaeologists in the world, demonstrating that the assumed historical period 2,100 - 600 BC never existed:
> 
> THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT HISTORY



Great link.

I especially liked this on the Sumerians:

Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirers by one and-a-half millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written treatises. Yet, modern scholars also teach us that there is one grain of truth in the Greek tradition. The teachers of humanity did indeed derive from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia. However-though they lived in the very territory of the Chaldaeans, where the Chaldaeans are missing-they were not Chaldaeans but Sumerians, and the Greeks had never heard of them: When their poleis (city-states) began culturally to blossom in the early -6th century, the wise men of Sumeria had already met their fate 1,500 years earlier. Nevertheless, researchers before 1868-when Jules Oppert created the term Sumerian-had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called Sumerian. Up to the end of the 19th century, art historians labeled as Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from Southern Mesopotamia.​​As the writer tried to prove, the sensationally unexpected Sumerians received a hidden fundamentalist Abrahamic date, whereas the Chaldaeans received a Classical Greek date. If we leave unscholarly dating systems aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the so-called Neo- Sumerians, who thereby are touted as the painfully-missing Chaldaeans. "Neo-Sumerian" Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by millennia or centuries, but by decades at most.​​Heinsohn has made a very important contribution to the revisionist debate by focussing attention on the evidence of stratigraphy outside Egypt. Dayton had uncovered many examples in museums around the world where near identical ancient artefacts of very similar styles and manufacturing techniques were given dates which varied sometimes by as much as 1000-1500 years. Heinsohn, from an extensive study of archaeological reports from most of the better known sites across Asia Minor, showed how these anachronisms had arisen. At site after site, archaeologists had artificially increased the age of the lower strata by inserting, without supporting evidence, 'occupation gaps' of many centuries. They did this in order to meet the expectations of excessive antiquity among historians, who had used Biblically derived dates for Abraham (c. 2100), initially seen as broadly contemporary with the great Assyrian king Hammurabi. Using this elongated time frame, great empires of the past such as the Sumerians, Akkadians and Old Babylonians were invented by late 19th C and early 20th C scholars to fill the historical voids. The ancient Greek and Roman historians, not surprisingly, knew nothing of these ancient peoples. Sumerian, said Heinsohn, 'is the language of the well known Kassite/Chaldeans, whose literacy deserves its fame'.​


----------



## Daniel (Jun 5, 2021)

The issue is to realise that the dating system BC/AD was not used since Year 1.
Therd had to have been a time and a place when people devised, and then implemented, the chronological framework.
The questions are:
1) When did this occur?
2) Who were the people who devised the chronology?
3) What were their beliefs?
4) What methods did they use to create the chronology?
5) How were they able to make their chronology pretty much universally accepted?

Once you know and understood these five points, the entirety of "History" starts looking very different.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 5, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Great link.
> 
> I especially liked this on the Sumerians:
> 
> Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirers by one and-a-half millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written treatises. Yet, modern scholars also teach us that there is one grain of truth in the Greek tradition. The teachers of humanity did indeed derive from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia. However-though they lived in the very territory of the Chaldaeans, where the Chaldaeans are missing-they were not Chaldaeans but Sumerians, and the Greeks had never heard of them: When their poleis (city-states) began culturally to blossom in the early -6th century, the wise men of Sumeria had already met their fate 1,500 years earlier. Nevertheless, researchers before 1868-when Jules Oppert created the term Sumerian-had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called Sumerian. Up to the end of the 19th century, art historians labeled as Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from Southern Mesopotamia.​​As the writer tried to prove, the sensationally unexpected Sumerians received a hidden fundamentalist Abrahamic date, whereas the Chaldaeans received a Classical Greek date. If we leave unscholarly dating systems aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the so-called Neo- Sumerians, who thereby are touted as the painfully-missing Chaldaeans. "Neo-Sumerian" Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by millennia or centuries, but by decades at most.​​Heinsohn has made a very important contribution to the revisionist debate by focussing attention on the evidence of stratigraphy outside Egypt. Dayton had uncovered many examples in museums around the world where near identical ancient artefacts of very similar styles and manufacturing techniques were given dates which varied sometimes by as much as 1000-1500 years. Heinsohn, from an extensive study of archaeological reports from most of the better known sites across Asia Minor, showed how these anachronisms had arisen. At site after site, archaeologists had artificially increased the age of the lower strata by inserting, without supporting evidence, 'occupation gaps' of many centuries. They did this in order to meet the expectations of excessive antiquity among historians, who had used Biblically derived dates for Abraham (c. 2100), initially seen as broadly contemporary with the great Assyrian king Hammurabi. Using this elongated time frame, great empires of the past such as the Sumerians, Akkadians and Old Babylonians were invented by late 19th C and early 20th C scholars to fill the historical voids. The ancient Greek and Roman historians, not surprisingly, knew nothing of these ancient peoples. Sumerian, said Heinsohn, 'is the language of the well known Kassite/Chaldeans, whose literacy deserves its fame'.​


Great link, indeed.

One of my favorite excerpts:



> *The biblical triplication of Herodotus' time span could only be achieved on paper.  What one was able to do with the pen could not be repeated with the spade*.  Even if we use a chronology of 3,000 or 1,000 pre- Christian years of high civilization, this will not change the number and thickness of strata actually in the ground.  They remain unalterably the same.  Therefore, biblical chronology, applied to Herodotus' four Ancient Near Eastern periods, between the Chalcolithicum and Hellenism, created huge gaps of up to 1,500 or more years at individual sites.  These notorious lacunae were eventually filled by historians, who multiplied actual time spans by three.  They performed this miracle by heaping three stratagroups from different areas, but from contemporary periods, on top of each other on the pages of the chronology books.  Of course, scholarly justifications were needed.  These justifications arose from the use of three different dating schemes, which made contemporary strata of different areas look like successive periods, whose centers of power were located in different areas. The three schemes used were
> 
> (i) fundamentalist dates of Assyriology,
> (ii) pseudo-astronomical Sothic dates of Egyptology, and
> (iii) dates of Greek historiography.



The indisputable fact is that strata graphical analysis can NOT be altered, whereas documents can be forged, falsified and not to mention, created out of thin air. Therefore, the onus is on current academics to reconcile their version of 'history' and chronology with the unchangeable evidence of archeology.

@Grosseteste this is the key point made in this document. Your presence here is important in that the more academics not only realize but act upon this inconsistency in their 'knowledge' of the past, the quicker mainstream academia can be convinced to investigate these inconsistencies. I mean the more academics that start to question this and search for answers, the less likely those that do research in this direction will be ostracized by their colleagues as it stands at present. 

The paper quoted by Sandokhan and dreamtime above is a worthy read.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 5, 2021)

In the period 2003-2012, Charles Ginenthal published one of the best works on ancient history, the four volume set Pillars Of The Past.

A step by step demonstration, using hundreds of bibliographical references, and most unique historical and scientific insights, that the official version of modern history must start around 1,500 BC, and not some thousands of years earlier.

While validating some of I. Velikovsky's and G. Heinsohn's versions of the chronology of history, C. Ginenthal also brought forth some very interesting arguments against A. Fomenko's new chronology of history.

As we shall see in a moment, my version of the new radical chronology of history (all of history was falsified prior to 1,800 AD) comes to the rescue for A. Fomenko's new chronology of history.


C. Ginenthal offers four intriguing arguments against Fomenko's version of history: the El-Lahun papyri Sothic date for the late 12th Dynasty, a chronological key to dating Egyptian chronology (Dr. Lynn Rose’s analysis of the El-Lahun papyri which correlated the heliacal rising of the star Sirius with 34, out of 36 lunar festival data points for the documented material of the pharaohs in question, 34 were direct hits, now 37 lunar festival dates; see volume I of the Pillars Of The Past, pg. 73-107), the list of eclipses from the Annals of Ulster (contains from the years 496-884 AD, as many as 18 records of eclipses and comets which agree exactly even to the day and hour with the calculations of modern astronomers, and which were validated even by Dr. Robert Newton, one of the sets of eclipses in the period 500 - 1,100 AD which Dr. Newton believed to be correct, but which were seen to be part of a huge set of falsified data for the historical eclipses within that same period, see my  previous message on the Moon Elongation), the VAT 4956 data ( a cuneiform document located in the Near Eastern department of the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, it records the positions of the five planets visible to the naked eye as well as the Moon over a period of about one year, during the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II and can be precisely retrocalculated to the year between 568 and the first month, Nisan, of 567 BC), and the 136 BC eclipse reference ( the most accurate and therefore reliable eclipse ever retrocalculated, from the clay tablets of the astronomical diaries of Babylon).


Given the fact that Dr. Anatoly Fomenko believes that the historical records starting with 1,500 AD are reliable/true, it becomes very difficult to defend the new chronology of history given the above arguments presented by Charles Ginenthal.

ONLY by using the NEW RADICAL CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY can the arguments published by C. Ginenthal be debunked/refuted (volume four of the Pillars Of The Past, pg. 523-548).


The Babylonian cuneiform tablets were created over a period lasting several decades (1,780 - 1,850 AD) by the same group of people who also prepared Tutankhamon's tomb during the 19th century (which contains stunning objects of art:

Howard Carter knew exactly where to dig back in 1922, as Tutankhamun's tomb had been prepared in a haste just a few decades earlier.

In fact, modern researchers were stunned when they investigated the tomb:

Ultimate Tutankhamun to air on National Geographic this July :: Media Update

Visiting Tutankhamun’s tomb, Naunton and his team take in the ancient pharaoh’s haphazard burial site. With little decoration, modest size and absence of esoteric text, the tomb hardly feels fit for a king. Even more unusual, King Tutankhamun’s famous death mask seems to have been hastily fashioned from a woman’s headdress.

See also: The Tutankhamun Deception


Using the new mathematical tools available at the start of the 19th century, they were able to retrocalculate, using the conventional chronology of history, various solar/lunar eclipses, and thus include them in the falsified Babylonian cuneiform set of tablets.

https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babybibl.htm
The Recovery of Babylonian Astronomy
Astronomers Are Using Ancient Eclipse Records to Solve a Cosmic Mystery
Cuneiform


The El-Lahun papyri: again, using the new mathematical tools available, the retrocalculations were done very precisely.

http://hekint.org/the-el-lahun-gynecological-papyrus/


The Annals of Ulster/Bodleian Library were created at the end of the 18th century (the Gauss Easter formula applied to the Gregorian calendar reform tells us that the London Royal Society/Leonhard Euler/I. Newton claims regarding the number of days which were to be calculated in this context are totally wrong).


C. Pfister's analysis of the correct dating for the St. Gallen library:

Die angeblich

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.dillum.ch/html/sankt_gallen_stiftsbibliothek_kritik.htm&edit-text=


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Safranek said:


> @Grosseteste this is the key point made in this document. Your presence here is important in that the more academics not only realize but act upon this inconsistency in their 'knowledge' of the past, the quicker mainstream academia can be convinced to investigate these inconsistencies. I mean the more academics that start to question this and search for answers, the less likely those that do research in this direction will be ostracized by their colleagues as it stands at present.


Sure, but some of the responses above verge on the abusive ("bullshit") and this forum offers no encouragement to those of my profession who are interested in some of the contradictions that seem to result from different approaches to dating.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Sure, but some of the responses above verge on the abusive ("bullshit") and this forum offers no encouragement to those of my profession who are interested in some of the contradictions that seem to result from different approaches to dating.



I apologize. It just comes across as arrogant to go here and tell us we have to explain everything in detail, since there is already so much research available in the forum which you could look at if you were really interested.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Sure, but some of the responses above verge on the abusive ("bullshit") and this forum offers no encouragement to those of my profession who are interested in some of the contradictions that seem to result from different approaches to dating.



Point taken, but consider this. We all have moments when we are prone to respond in a way less then optimal given our character and disposition, I'm sure this applies to everyone at times.

Also consider that dreamtime is a founding member of this forum and has invested a considerable amount of time and resources (along with some others) to make this forum possible in its present form. This includes the constant moderation to try and keep things, civil, congruent, respectful and informative while pursuing his interests of the many subjects being discussed. If you read not only his threads and replies but his moderation posts, you will come to the conclusion that few would be able to do a better job.

Obviously not everything herein is scientific as most members are not scientists by academic qualification, but many intelligent curious researchers trying to uncover our past and lately, out of necessity, our present.

I think it has become evident even to academics, that the amount of peer-pressure to tow the line regarding the status-quo in ALL our fields of science is scientifically unreasonable and demands an explanation from its enforcers, as unfortunately economics is an integral part of all scientific research and especially publication.

So let's not get caught up on intermittent negatively interpreted comments, especially where an apology has been offered and should be accepted to move on to the important things, the center of which is the truth.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Point taken, but consider this.


OK many thanks for replying in such a positive way.

Separately, to demonstrate good faith, I propose to include a date calculator in my project. I want an algorithm to convert any date in any calendar to Julian date. There is some great material by Bill Jefferys here Julian Day Calculations (Gregorian Calendar) which I am working on. Also I will put together some code for Gauss's algorithm, which I will check against Stellarium (a widely available astronomical calculator). Note that Stellarium is not consistent with documented dates before 1582 so all of this needs to be checked carefully.

Desired outcome: enter any time and date from any chronicle where some astronomical event is recorded, and check against the software to see if such an event really did occur.

For example, Bede writes "In the year 538, there happened an eclipse of the sun, on the 16th of February, from the first to the third hour." Enter that date into the algorithm to get (i) the Julian datetime, then further enter that datetime into the astronomical calculator to see what happens.

Note that Jennifer Moreton ("Doubts about the Calendar: Bede and the Eclipse of 664", _Isis_ Vol. 89, No. 1, Mar 1998, pp. 50-65) has already performed a similar exercise for the eclipse that Bede reports in his History.

[EDIT] Philipp Nothaft, whose work I mentioned in an earlier post, has a page here Dr Philipp Nothaft | All Souls College : "Most of my research revolves around the history of astronomy, chronology, and time-reckoning in medieval and early modern Europe, with a heavy focus on unpublished sources in medieval Latin manuscripts," so it looks as though some of my proposed project work has already been done.

[EDIT] This book of his also looks interesting:


> The Julian Calendar and the Problem of the Equinoxes in the Early Middle Ages​C. Philipp E. Nothaft​
> DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198799559.003.0002
> 
> This chapter familiarizes readers with the ancient back-story of the Julian calendar and describes how one of the central problems inherent in this calendar—the drift of the equinoxes and solstices caused by an overestimation of the length of the tropical year—manifested itself in medieval literature until the end of the eleventh century. It also explores how the development of the _computus_ genre in seventh-century Ireland was instrumental in preserving knowledge of the Western calendar’s Roman-pagan roots. The final two sections show how the existence of diverging traditions for the dates of the equinoxes and solstices in the Julian calendar created an important context for the practice of solar astronomy in early medieval Europe, which included the use of observational methods.



[EDIT]
And I found a wonderful program by Raymond Mercier. Screenshot below. Converts any date to any date. Costs £30, I am using the demo for now. I checked the Sundays given in Bede _Historia_ and it already turns out there is a 3 year difference, so either Bede is wrong or Mercier is wrong. I will run a full consistency check later.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> OK many thanks for replying in such a positive way.
> 
> Separately, to demonstrate good faith, I propose to include a date calculator in my project. I want an algorithm to convert any date in any calendar to Julian date. There is some great material by Bill Jefferys here Julian Day Calculations (Gregorian Calendar) which I am working on. Also I will put together some code for Gauss's algorithm, which I will check against Stellarium (a widely available astronomical calculator). Note that Stellarium is not consistent with documented dates before 1582 so all of this needs to be checked carefully.
> 
> ...


I think you are not understanding the issue at hand. This is not a problem of conversion of dates inside _relative _dating systems. The problem is about _absolute_ dates. When the Council of Nicaea _could not happen_ in 325 AD, all the calculations based on the assumption that modern chronology is right go immediately in the trash can.

I insist that you or whatever historian give, as Florin Diacu suggests, a proper _scientific_ response to the research by Fomenko/Nosovsky. In particular Nosovsky's paper alone, that about the Council of Nicaea, is a good starting point. It is a mere 15 pages and Diacu was able to understand it, so the language barrier is not a thing.

EDIT: language barrier due to translation


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 5, 2021)

If academics directly address any issue outside of the mainstream then their career  and all that rides on it is over.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I insist that you or whatever historian give, as Florin Diacu suggests, a proper _scientific_ response to the research by Fomenko/Nosovsky. In particular Nosovsky's paper alone, that about the Council of Nicaea, is a good starting point. It is a mere 15 pages and Diacu was able to understand it, so the language barrier is not a thing.


That is precisely what I am working towards. Why do you think I am downloading chronological software such as Mercier's? It's a long and arduous task to check this stuff.

[EDIT] For example, the Mercier program allows me to check, for Gregorian or any other date, whether a solar eclipse occurred on that date. I am still getting the hang of it.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> That is precisely what I am working towards. Why do you think I am downloading chronological software such as Mercier's? It's a long and arduous task to check this stuff.
> 
> [EDIT] For example, the Mercier program allows me to check, for Gregorian or any other date, whether a solar eclipse occurred on that date. I am still getting the hang of it.


Oh my God. At this point I don't know how to explain to you what you are not understanding. The problem is the WRONG calculation of eclipses done by Kepler in the 17th century... 17th century!!! Florin Diacu (Florin Diacu - Wikipedia), a _mathematician_ with expertise in these sector, has already confirmed that the calculations made by Nosovsky ARE CORRECT! And he urges the historians to go and take a look at his paper, something you obviously don't want to do.

If historians want to be mathematicians then it is obvious that someone else is going to write history in your stead.

Here the paper to read. A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 5, 2021)

Easter Issue, Dr. G. Nosovsky

Easter Issue


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Oh my God. At this point I don't know how to explain to you what you are not understanding. The problem is the WRONG calculation of eclipses done by Kepler in the 17th century... 17th century!!!



Well let's take the first step. Mercier (who is not Kepler) has published software available here Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities which allows to me to select any point in time in the past, using any chosen dating system. Let's say, to avoid any disagreement, the Julian Day Number Julian day - Wikipedia. He then uses astronomical software to determine the position of the sun and moon on that chosen date. That software will use Gauss's algorithm or something like it.

So for example Bede writes "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est." I.e. in 753on the 9th of January, there was an eclipse of the sun.

Using Mercier's software I can check this, and the software indeed confirms that there was an eclipse on that day.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Well let's take the first step. Mercier (who is not Kepler) has published software available here Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities which allows to me to select any point in time in the past, using any chosen dating system. Let's say, to avoid any disagreement, the Julian Day Number Julian day - Wikipedia. He then uses astronomical software to determine the position of the sun and moon on that chosen date. That software will use Gauss's algorithm or something like it.
> 
> So for example Bede writes "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est." I.e. in 753on the 9th of January, there was an eclipse of the sun.
> 
> ...


How many solar eclipses do happen in a year? How many times that eclipse can be repeated? Is that description enough to say it was happening that year?

I repeat myself another time. Florin Diacu has _already _told you to take a look at Nosovsky's paper. If everything is right, why a mathematician of international fame (not a historian) should say that to you?

I think you don't want to answer the question.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 5, 2021)

People are raised to believe that the entire chronological framework was created using scientific methods. They have no more reason to question it than they have reason to question how arithmetic works.

However, when someone actually looks into the way Chronology was really put together...


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think you don't want to answer the question.



Not at all. I am working through each century to understand how the day shift occurs from Julian to Gregorian, then Mercier has a program to investigate Easter dates. But this takes some time to understand. 

There is also one key assumption made by Fomenko that may explain what is going on, but I am some way from understanding the whole thing.

On the dates of eclipses, I have worked through the 6 eclipses specified by Bede, and they all agree with Mercier's software. I also checked the places where he mentions the dates of Sundays. These also match up. There is also William of Malmesbury's chronology to work through, also the Anglo saxon chronicle. 

More later.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 5, 2021)

Is it possible that Mercier's software was created with the assumption that those dates are all correct, and it was programmed to include them?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Not at all. I am working through each century to understand how the day shift occurs from Julian to Gregorian, then Mercier has a program to investigate Easter dates. But this takes some time to understand.
> 
> There is also one key assumption made by Fomenko that may explain what is going on, but I am some way from understanding the whole thing.
> 
> ...


Really. You are not understanding the issue at hand because you never opened a book from Fomenko/Nosovsky and therefore what you are doing is simply useless. The problem with the eclipses is explained here: http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N02-EN-093-126.pdf


Daniel said:


> Is it possible that Mercier's software was created with the assumption that those dates are all correct, and it was programmed to include them?


Exactly


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 5, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Is it possible that Mercier's software was created with the assumption that those dates are all correct, and it was programmed to include them?



I thought of that, but having compared the Julian to the Gregorian dates, he is clearly using an algorithm similar or identical to the one used by Fomenko and many other astro-chronologists.

See table below.



JulianGregorian300-01-01300-01-01400-01-01400-01-02500-01-01500-01-02600-01-01600-01-03700-01-01700-01-04800-01-01800-01-05900-01-01900-01-051000-01-011000-01-061100-01-011100-01-071200-01-011200-01-081300-01-011300-01-081400-01-011400-01-091500-01-011500-01-101600-01-011600-01-111700-01-011700-01-11


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 5, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I thought of that, but having compared the Julian to the Gregorian dates, he is clearly using an algorithm similar or identical to the one used by Fomenko and many other astro-chronologists.
> 
> See table below.
> 
> ...


Even this reply shows that you are not understanding the problem. It is NOT about relative dates. It is about _absolute _dates.

Here the excerpt for you to read by Florin Diacu about the problem with eclipses:



> *The Almagest, Probabilities, and the Method of Least Squares*
> 
> The moon's acceleration was only one disagreement between Robert Newton and Anatoly Fomenko. They also strongly differed on the _Almagest_, the most influential astronomy book ever written. Claudius Ptolemy, one of the greatest scientists of antiquity, wrote it in Alexandria during the reign of the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, traditionally set from AD 138 to 161. Any firm evidence for a different dating of this treatise would affect the chronology of Rome and consequently most ancient history. This opus touches on the main problems of astronomy, from the nature of the universe to lunar and planetary motion, and contains detailed star catalogs and records of eclipses, occultations, and equinoxes, all of which are prone to mathematical dating. The original version of the _Almagest_ has been lost, but in its many translations the work has been in circulation since ancient times.
> 
> ...


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 5, 2021)

Let us keep this very simple.

On what date did the Passover fall in the year 563 AD (Julian calendar)?


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 5, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Even this reply shows that you are not understanding the problem. It is NOT about relative dates. It is about _absolute _dates.
> 
> Here the excerpt for you to read by Florin Diacu about the problem with eclipses:


If this is really his procedure and he didn't fake his numbers, then this is not really up to discussion. It is bullet proof


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 5, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Let us keep this very simple.
> 
> On what date did the Passover fall in the year 563 AD (Julian calendar)?








And yet, Dionysius Exiguus wrote that the Passover had fallen on March 24, 563 AD:


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Well let's take the first step. Mercier (who is not Kepler) has published software available here Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities which allows to me to select any point in time in the past, using any chosen dating system. Let's say, to avoid any disagreement, the Julian Day Number Julian day - Wikipedia. He then uses astronomical software to determine the position of the sun and moon on that chosen date. That software will use Gauss's algorithm or something like it.
> 
> So for example Bede writes "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est." I.e. in 753on the 9th of January, there was an eclipse of the sun.
> 
> ...






The eclipse you have found is an annular one, with the sun passing through (roughly) the Atlantic, then France, Italy and so on. I have searched from what distance the annular eclipse is still visible. This is the result: how far an annular eclipse is visible - Google zoeken
Around 150 km, therefore Bede could not see an annular eclipse that year, since England is at roughly 500 km from the path showed on the map (it is said that total and annular eclipses cover around 1% of the surface of the Earth).

That brings a question (suggested by Fomenko in his study): what eclipses should be considered as legit to prove something?

Bede talks about another solar eclipse for the year 733 AD and a Lunar one for the same year you mentioned (and I would like to see the graphs for these two too - [Bede: Continuatio]). Since he mentions these two solar eclipses at a distance of 20 years, the first one apparently described (you can confirm this) as total, then it would be logical to presume that he mentioned only the total eclipses, even though this is contradicted by the the eclipse of 753 AD which was partial in England (and even more in Northumbria where he presumably lived).
Therefore it seems strange that he could not report other partial eclipses. You can see here how many partial eclipses one would reasonably expect in 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_eclipses_visible_from_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century_(AD_2001_%E2%80%93_2100
One could say that he was mentioning an annular eclipse (without specifying it was annular or giving any kind of description whatsoever) from another place in Europe. Even worse! In that case he should have reported even more eclipses, possibly specifying WHERE those happened and giving some description.

So these "eclipses" don't really prove anything and they are totally useless, as Fomenko has proved. There have been hundreds of partial eclipses in Europe in 1000 years and Bede had apparently failed in his attempt of 753 AD!!! I would like to see the graphs for the other two, if possible, since that of 733 AD also gives the hour and was apparently total, while the second one happened the same month.

Finally... Wasn't Bede (Bede - Wikipedia) supposed to be _*dead *_in 753 AD? Did he return from the dead to leave us these incomplete informations about eclipses?

I once again invite you to take a look at Nosovsky's paper which shows how the Council of Nicaea _*could not happen *_in 325 ad.
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 6, 2021)

This image I knew I'd seen the annular shape before


> https://stolenhistory.net/attachments/1622905444916-png.10669/


'I know, an old lady who swallowed a fly....'



Probably a coincidence.

Edit as I missed a y!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Finally... Wasn't Bede (Bede - Wikipedia) supposed to be _*dead *_in 753 AD? Did he return from the dead to leave us these incomplete informations about eclipses?


That was the ‘continuatio’, i.e. the continuation of Bede’s work by another hand.



> I once again invite you to take a look at Nosovsky's paper which shows how the Council of Nicaea _*could not happen *_in 325 ad.
> A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)



I am still struggling to understand the logic of pages 390-405. I scanned them in and OCR’d them so they are at least readable, but the logic defies me.

There are two sides (1) a paper by Fomenko et al whose logical steps so far escape me (2) a conclusion from that paper which I find utterly implausible, namely that the intellectual history of the middle ages which I know reasonably well turns into a complete illogical nightmare. For example, Byzantine history, Islamic history and so on.



sandokhan said:


> Let us keep this very simple.
> 
> On what date did the Passover fall in the year 563 AD (Julian calendar)?



That’s the part I am struggling to understand of the whole argument. The argument seems to depend on the relation between Christian and passover dating. But I am a long way from understanding it.

[EDIT]

Diacu:


> In Vlastar’s time, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday took place within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar knew, is twenty-four hours in 304 years. _Therefore_ the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722.



I don’t understand the ‘therefore’, and also why does the fact that the ‘Easter Book’, the set of rules determining Easter, was written around AD 722 have anything to do with the dating of the Council of Nicea. I can see it would follow if we had firm historical evidence that the Easter Book was determined no later than Nicea, but where is that evidence?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I am still struggling to understand the logic of pages 390-405.



Use this:

Easter Issue

One of the main conclusions of this thread is the following: the main tenets of the Koran had been written down some decades before the books of the Bible were being assembled together (Koran ~1740 AD, Bible ~1780 AD).


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Use this:
> 
> Easter Issue
> 
> One of the main conclusions of this thread is the following: the main tenets of the Koran had been written down some decades before the books of the Bible were being assembled together (Koran ~1740 AD, Bible ~1780 AD).



If that is the conclusion, it strongly implies that one or more of the premises is false. For example, our house was built around that time, and my records show that the first owner was a minister in the Church of England. So the Church of England existed at the same time the books of the Bible were being assembled together. Seems slightly implausible to me.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 6, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Use this:
> 
> Easter Issue
> 
> One of the main conclusions of this thread is the following: the main tenets of the Koran had been written down some decades before the books of the Bible were being assembled together (Koran ~1740 AD, Bible ~1780 AD).


I have mentions of the bible from before 1780 that I have no reason to doubt from my fathers family archives.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 6, 2021)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (impossible details relating to Napoleon's biography)

http://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm (amazing related events in the history of the reigns of Napoleon III/I)

The entire chronology of history of the 18th century has been falsified.

Since the Council of Nicaea must have taken place at least after the year 876-877 AD, the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 AD never occurred at all.

Now we know that advanced calculus was used by the architects of the pyramid of Gizeh:

New radical chronology of history

The architects of Gizeh also used the meter (date of discovery 1799 AD, official chronology):

New radical chronology of history



Worsaae said:


> I have mentions of the bible from before 1780



What mentions?



Grosseteste said:


> my records show that the first owner was a minister in the Church of England



The records also show that Jean-Felix Picard was a priest, a hypothesis which however is denied by the facts:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

Everyone here must remember this: the works attributed to Dionysius Exiguus were falsified at least after 1,400 AD.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 6, 2021)

Letters. One says: virgin mary could the book better than any prophets, which the old testament bewrites. It's in danish but I have translated it as good as possible while keeping the weird old syntax intact. Note that I have omitted a part that says "that called bible" because it is hard to know if it refers to the prophets being called the bible or the book.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 6, 2021)

Let me show you something.

The author of Revelation 11:8 tells us that Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the *great city*, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that *great city*, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )

Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw *is the great city*, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )



Great city on seven hills - either Rome or Constantinopole (also built in seven hills -
The Seven Hills of Constantinople )




> Furthermore, the crucifixion did not even take place in Jerusalem! According to the book of Revelations, Jesus was crucified in Rome:



And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelations 11:8, KJV)

The Christians would probably argue that the “great city” refers to Jerusalem, yet the renowned Bible scholar John Gill disagrees:



> And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19."



*The most important clue*, which shows that the description can only be fulfilled by Constantinople and not by Rome or Jerusalem:

*The woman (city) in Revelation 17:1 also sits on many waters. Istanbul “sits” on or near the Sea of Marmara, the Golden Horn River, the Bosphorus Strait, the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, the sea of Crete, and the Mediteranean Sea.*


Babylon = Constantinople = Troy

History, Fiction Or Science?

Chapter I, section 10,  the locations of Troy and Babylon, pg. 42 - 44


The Book of Apocalypse/Revelations dated astronomically to no earlier than 1486 AD:

History, Fiction Or Science?

Chapter 3: The new dating of the astronomical horoscope as described in the Apocalypse, pg. 134-166


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> by another hand


It seems correct to me. And this is one of the main reasons why these texts are unreliable dating-wise. How many _hands _touched this chronicle?


Grosseteste said:


> a conclusion from that paper which I find utterly implausible, namely that the intellectual history of the middle ages which I know reasonably well turns into a complete illogical nightmare. For example, Byzantine history, Islamic history and so on.


I totally understand your struggle and perplexities.


Grosseteste said:


> I don’t understand the ‘therefore’, and also why does the fact that the ‘Easter Book’, the set of rules determining Easter, was written around AD 722 have anything to do with the dating of the Council of Nicea. I can see it would follow if we had firm historical evidence that the Easter Book was determined no later than Nicea, but where is that evidence?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

I questioned whether "we had firm historical evidence that the Easter Book was determined no later than Nicea". You replied quoting an *assertion* that Nicea "canonised the Easter Book". What is the *evidence* for that assertion please? I have looked for evidence, cannot find it.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I questioned whether "we had firm historical evidence that the Easter Book was determined no later than Nicea". You replied quoting an *assertion* that Nicea "canonised the Easter Book". What is the *evidence* for that assertion please? I have looked for evidence, cannot find it.


oops I didn't understand


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

@Grosseteste I've found this paper (not read it though) which says in the first page "the First Ecumenical Council of 325AD, which set the rules of when Easter should be celebrated"... https://www3.nd.edu/~pantsakl/Archive/dateofeaster.pdf


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> @Grosseteste I've found this paper (not read it though) which says in the first page "the First Ecumenical Council of 325AD, which set the rules of when Easter should be celebrated"... https://www3.nd.edu/~pantsakl/Archive/dateofeaster.pdf



Correct, however if you read around the subject you see that the rules did not include at least one of those mentioned by Vlastar, plus there is substantial evidence that the rules were ignored anyway.

So we have an interesting paradox. If some of the documentary evidence (i.e. about when the Easter rules were set, and what those rules actually were) is correct, then nearly all of the documentary evidence is incorrect.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Correct, however if you read around the subject you see that the rules did not include at least one of those mentioned by Vlastar, plus there is substantial evidence that the rules were ignored anyway.
> 
> So we have an interesting paradox. If some of the documentary evidence (i.e. about when the Easter rules were set, and what those rules actually were) is correct, then nearly all of the documentary evidence is incorrect.


It is addressed by Nosovsky in his paper. I think my summary would be worse than his own explanation!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It is addressed by Nosovsky in his paper. I think my summary would be worse than his own explanation!



Page reference please.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

From here onwards http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img399.pdf


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 6, 2021)

From here onwards http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img399.pdf

This part:


> What does the difficulty of this problem consist in? The question seems clear. Although the original rule of the Council of Nicaea *did not survive*, it is known that the Council did determine *that* rule [what rule??]; moreover, it did it in 325 A.D., when a "reliable methods for calculating the dates of Easter had been worked out" and the schedule of Easter dates had been already compiled, which later "was used for centuries". The latter is quite natural because "every 532 years the Christian Easter recurs in the same order ... Easter tables for all 532 years were known" [336, p. 4]. Thus, calculation of a new 532-year Easter Book reduces to a mere shift of the preceding one by 532 years. This rule obtains till now: the last great indiction (as the 532-year period of the Easter Book is called) began in 1941 and is a shift of the preceding one (1409-1940) which, in its turn, can be obtained by shifting the indiction of 877-1408, and that one by shifting the indiction of 345-876.
> 
> Thus, the original form of the Easter Book can easily be restored. *Besides*, the rules lying at the basis of the Easter Book are well known from the ecclesiastical tradition. In "The Collection of Rules of the Holy Fathers of the Church" of Matthew Vlastar (Constantinople, 14th century), an account of enactments of the oecumenical and regional councils, it is said:



Which I find far from conclusive. The word 'besides' is always a giveaway.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 6, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> From here onwards http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img399.pdf
> 
> This part:
> 
> ...


I think, by the context of the text (I've not re-read it), it is the rule about celebrating Easter separately from Israelites, as descibed the page before: http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img398.pdf


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 6, 2021)

The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era: the most comprehensive work on the official history/chronology of dating the Christian era, with special emphasis on Dionysius Exiguus

Wayback Machine


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era: the most comprehensive work on the official history/chronology of dating the Christian era, with special emphasis on Dionysius Exiguus
> 
> Wayback Machine


525 + 38 = 563



> In the preface to his Easter tables, Dionysius says that he drafted the 19-year cycles to generate a list of Easter dates for a total of 95 years. The list serves, he says, as a continuation of a 95-year table based on calculations made in Alexandria of Egypt, in which the years had been numbered from the year 153 since the accession of the Roman emperor Diocletian to the year 247. At the time of his writing, Dionysius says, there are still six years remaining in that list. Instead of beginning his own table with the year 248, Dionysius says that he decided to designate the years as numbered from the Incarnation of Christ. The list that Dionysius composed begins with the year 532. We can deduce therefore that it was in the year 525 that Dionysius completed his work and wrote the prefatory letter.


" We can deduce therefore that it was in the year 525 that Dionysius completed his work and wrote the prefatory letter."

And yet, for the year 563 AD, Exiguus got the day of the Passover absolutely wrong:

Dating and Chronology

Dr. G. Nosovsky:



> We shall start with the Circle for Moon, or “Methon’s Cycle”, as it is also called. Easter calculations require the knowledge of the day in either March or April of the year in question that the full moon falls upon.





> We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.





> The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.



It was absolutely within Exiguus' reach to calculate correctly the date of the Passover for the year 563 AD. Yet he got it wrong.




> Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.





> The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.





> The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.





> However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 3*16, 319, 323, 343, 347*, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in *306 and 326 *(allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years *346, 350*, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

Sandokhan:


> Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.





> The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.





> The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.





> However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 3*16, 319, 323, 343, 347*, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in *306 and 326 *(allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years *346, 350*, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.



So which is more probable (A) that vast numbers of documents from the early middle ages are wholly incorrect, or falsified. Or (B) that one or more of the assumptions above are wrong?

E.g. how can we be certain that the Passover violation referred to in the last assumption was noticed, but not acted on? The history suggests that different churches interpreted the rules in different ways, or ignored them, or did not know about them.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

I have kept the best part for the end.

Dionysius Exiguus (470 - 544 AD), the central pillar of historical chronology.

Here are the figures for the Passover used by Exiguus, taken from his Easter Tables:

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter, or, the Paschal Cycle (2003)

519 AD  -  March 30

523 AD  -  April 15

536 AD  -  March 22

543 AD  -  April 4

All of these dates occurred during his lifetime (as recorded by the official chronology of history).

563 AD  -  March 24

570 AD  -  April 5

590 AD  -  March 25

594 AD  -  April 10

614 AD  -  March 30

Now, the *correct dates*:

519 AD  -  March 31

523 AD  -  April 16

536 AD  -  March 23

543 AD  -  April 5

563 AD  -  March 25

570 AD  -  April 6

590 AD  -  March 26

594 AD  -  April 11

614 AD  -  March 31






Perpetual Easter Calculator: Julian/Gregorian Easter Sunday and Jewish Passover

Simply put: Exiguus' calculations (as well as his Easter Tables) would have been cast into the dustbin of history. No one would have looked in his direction to find out anything at all about the chronology of history.

Exiguus' biography and works were forged at least after 1,400 AD.



> The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.



Exiguus assigned the date Saturday March 24, 1,095 AD, as the date for the First Easter:

http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img410.pdf
http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf



Grosseteste said:


> So which is more probable (A) that vast numbers of documents from the early middle ages are wholly incorrect, or falsified.


Everything else depends on Dionysius Exiguus.

And Nosovsky used the SAME BIBLIOGRAPHY as did Scaliger to reach the date 876-877 AD for the Council of Nicaea (the works attributed to Exiguus and Blastares). The difference is that Nosovsky had at his disposal Gauss' Easter formula and he was actually able to check each and every date.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

I don't see how the conclusion (complete revision of history) follows from the premisses (Dionysius calculated some dates wrongly).

Separately, I have calculated the date of all equinoxes from 325-1582. I am now calculating the date of the first full moon after the equinox for each of those years. May take some time.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think, by the context of the text (I've not re-read it), it is the rule about celebrating Easter separately from Israelites, as descibed the page before: http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img398.pdf


Christians can't celebrate Easter separately from Israelites, because Christians are Israelites. I think.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Dr. G. Nosovsky:


I want to see the exact links from where you take these quotations @sandokhan. Is it that difficult?


Worsaae said:


> Christians can't celebrate Easter separately from Israelites, because Christians are Israelites. I think.


It seems not. It is probably because traditionally the Israelites were the ones who killed Jesus, therefore the Christian Easter had to be done separately. I am just supposing here.

Also @sandokhan, don't you understand that you are talking alone? How can someone follow your thousands of quotations? Please, give the links of the quotations and stop jumping around from one topic to another. Thanks


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

So far you have been using my links and my arguments to debate, and you haven't been very successful at it. Please use your own bibliography and ideas to present your view on the matter. You are not a mod to tell me (or anyone else) what to do, or how we should be writing our own messages.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 7, 2021)

Oh my God! What are you, a child?

YOUR links? How those links are yours? It's Nosovsky's research. Are you Nosovsky?

YOUR arguments? Do you understand you sound ridiculous? Those are Nosovsky's arguments... are you Nosovsky?

Successful? What is it, a competition?

I am not a mod for sure, in fact I said words such as "please" and "thanks". I used these words to make you understand that you are not talking alone and probably someone could be interested in seeing where you take the informations (which are not YOURS, by the way), and other people is partecipatinf in the convesation, since this is a blog, not your private corrispondence.

If you want to give the links, it will be appreciated.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> So far you have been using my links and my arguments to debate, and you haven't been very successful at it. Please use your own bibliography and ideas to present your view on the matter. You are not a mod to tell me (or anyone else) what to do, or how we should be writing our own messages.



You share links and expect people not to refer to them? You are not even participating in discussions, just adding links all the time. It's gotten to the point where we are thinking about excluding you from the forum, since it's so much work to follow you around.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

silveryou has been trying to copy my research, and as you can see, he is not doing a very good job. He already has the links and everything he needs to know, but he is trying to raise mayhem, since nobody is paying attention to his messages. And yet, you as a mod, are looking the other way.



dreamtime said:


> It's gotten to the point where we are thinking about excluding you from the forum, since it's so much work to follow you around.



I only write in 2-3 threads. And who is going to explain to the readers of this forum what covid-19 really is, what is coming up, and many other things? You? Not a chance.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> silveryou has been trying to copy my research, and as you can see, he is not doing a very good job. He already has the links and everything he needs to know, but he is trying to raise mayhem, since nobody is paying attention to his messages. And yet, you as a mod, are looking the other way.


I know the stuff from a long time. You were usefull ONLY because you provided some links. I don't even agree with your world view and Grosseteste's house was probably constructed in the year he says.
I am not trying to raise anything. I am just asking you two things: 1) stay on track. 2) give the links.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

To be fair, the one that Sandokhan posted at 10:52 comparing Dionysius with this site Perpetual Easter Calculator: Julian/Gregorian Easter Sunday and Jewish Passover was useful.

Separately, using a combination Mercier's software and my own (and checking with Stellarium) I have calculated the full moon dates corresponding to those years (see table above) and I find that sometimes Dionysius is 'right', sometimes the other website. But I am not sure where the other website gets its dates from.

I have confirmed that for all the dates in the table on the website *which I have checked* (I haven't checked them all), the passover and Easter dates coincide.

Exactly what this tells us, I am still not sure.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It seems not. It is probably because traditionally the Israelites were the ones who killed Jesus, therefore the Christian Easter had to be done separately. I am just supposing here.



I think this is a common misconception. Christians are the called ones, which is why the church rings, they are Gods chosen, they are sons of God, they are sons of the Promise, they are Gods glory (another word for Israel), Christians are Israel, which is a nation, not a place, but a people; Israelites. Jesus only came for the lost tribes of Israel, no one else. He also made it clear that someone can be living in Israel without being an Israelite. He also spent several stories warning against imposters, wolfs in sheeps clothing, false prophets and so on. 
Men of Israel did indeed kill Jesus but I don't see any evidence, from a Christian biblical perspective, to support the claim that Christians are not Israelites. When I am reading the bible, it looks as if the taught version of Christianity has been imposed upon us, but often not supported by the word of Jesus. Another example of this is that Judaism is taught to have come before Christianity, but this makes absolutely no sense from a Christian perspective, on the contrary Christianity is the continuation and the rejection of those that falsely claim to be of the promise. From a Christian perspective judaism comes long after Christianity as a reaction to having been rejected by the God of Israel. 
From a Christian perspective those practicing judaism has no relation to Judea or Israel, because otherwise they would've heard the call of Jesus Christ, like all Israelites do.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 7, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> I think this is a common misconception. Christians are the called ones, which is why the church rings, they are Gods chosen, they are sons of God, they are sons of the Promise, they are Gods glory (another word for Israel), Christians are Israel, which is a nation, not a place, but a people; Israelites. Jesus only came for the lost tribes of Israel, no one else. He also made it clear that someone can be living in Israel without being an Israelite. He also spent several stories warning against imposters, wolfs in sheeps clothing, false prophets and so on.
> Men of Israel did indeed kill Jesus but I don't see any evidence, from a Christian biblical perspective, to support the claim that Christians are not Israelites. When I am reading the bible, it looks as if the taught version of Christianity has been imposed upon us, but often not supported by the word of Jesus. Another example of this is that Judaism is taught to have come before Christianity, but this makes absolutely no sense from a Christian perspective, on the contrary Christianity is the continuation and the rejection of those that falsely claim to be of the promise. From a Christian perspective judaism comes long after Christianity as a reaction to having been rejected by the God of Israel.
> From a Christian perspective those practicing judaism has no relation to Judea or Israel, because otherwise they would've heard the call of Jesus Christ, like all Israelites do.


It could be true. I don't know. I was just quoting from what Constantine said.



​In any case it's better to stay focused on the chronological aspect here, because it's easy to diverge from the topic


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

I have now checked all the dates in the table given here Perpetual Easter Calculator: Julian/Gregorian Easter Sunday and Jewish Passover. The table shows the dates on which Easter Sunday coincided with the Passover. I aimed at replicating the calculation, and succeeded in most cases, although in a couple of cases I was day out. This may be because I considered Passover to begin at midnight, rather than in the evening of the previous day, but I doubt it. 

I haven't checked all the other dates in which the dates might have coincided, I might do so if there is time. There are nearly 500 years to check.

The question remains, what does any of this prove? One problem is that we don't know the actual observed Passover dates. As the author of the table asserts?



> *Note: The above calculations are based on the somewhat questionable assumption that during the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period the Jewish rabbinic calendar was already identical with the present rabbinic calendar.*



Correct. 

Also, it seems that Easter and Passover _did_ coincide at some times, otherwise why would this (from the _Secret History_ of Procopius of Caesarea) be true?



> *“[The emperor Justinian I (reigned 527-565)] also took pains to abolish the laws which the Hebrews honour. If it ever happened, for instance, that the year in its recurring rounds brought on the Feast of Passover before the festival of the Christians, he would not allow the Jews to celebrate this at the proper time, not to make any offering to God at that feast, nor to perform any of the rites customary among them. And many of them used to be brought to trial as having tasted the flesh of lambs at this time by those who were in a position of authority, and these punished them by heavy fines, arraigning them for violation of the laws of the State.”*



The whole of Fomenko's argument seems to depend on the questionable assumption that the coincidences were impossible. Why so? If they were impossible, why were Jews punished for celebrating on or before Easter?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Exactly what this tells us, I am still not sure.


But you are very sure. It tells you exactly this: the entire biography of Dionysius Exiguus was forged much later in time. 


Grosseteste said:


> (from the _Secret History_ of Procopius of Caesarea)


Nope. I told you that everything associated with Exiguus was faked as well.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/procopius-history_wars/1914/pb_LCL081.329.xml?readMode=recto

Procopius describes the Easter of the year 536 AD without mentioning the most important aspect: that Passover coincided with the Easter.


Pope John I had approved the work of Dionysius Exiguus (official chronology of history). Then, we have a succession of pontiffs: John II, Agapetus I, Silverius, Vigilius and so on. Certainly we can link Vigilius with Procopius of Caesarea. All of them have faked biographies.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> But you are very sure. It tells you exactly this: the entire biography of Dionysius Exiguus was forged much later in time.



It seems you are picking and choosing to suit your case. Any document that disagrees with your/Fomenko's conclusion must be forged. But your whole argument depends on some pieces of information being correct, i.e. on some documents not being forged. It is impossible to argue with someone who takes that line, so I won't argue with you.

[EDIT] Also, are you not confusing Procopius of Caesarea with Dionysius Exiguus? Different people.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

Not at all. I go much further than Fomenko, who stopped his investigation in the year 1500 AD.

What I did is to prove to you, using very precise calculations, that the Easter Tables, attributed to Exiguus, were forged much later in time. Everything and everyone associated with Exiguus had to be forged as well. That's all.


*EDIT*


Grosseteste said:


> Also, are you not confusing Procopius of Caesarea with Dionysius Exiguus? Different people.


Nope. They are linked, historically through Pope John I and Pope Vigilius. If Exiguus is erased from history, so are those two pontiffs.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> What I did is to prove to you, using very precise calculations, that the Easter Tables, attributed to Exiguus, were forged much later in time. Everything and everyone associated with Exiguus had to be forged as well. That's all.



I am working through the dates given by Dionysius and they are perfectly consistent (so far) with the astronomical software. So can you walk me through your argument that they are forged? By 'argument' I mean provide a set of assumptions from which your conclusion of forgery logically follows. I.e. so that it is impossible that the premisses be true and the conclusion false.

Your 'arguments' so far have been to make a claim, sometimes a sweeping claim, and provide a link. Please avoid any links, and please provide your argument in the form I asked for.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I am working through the dates given by Dionysius and they are perfectly consistent (so far) with the astronomical software.


That's not what you said earlier today:


Grosseteste said:


> I have confirmed that for all the dates in the table on the website *which I have checked* (I haven't checked them all), the passover and Easter dates coincide.


Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged. 

Please read again:

Dating and Chronology


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> That's not what you said earlier today:
> 
> Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged.
> 
> ...



I have now finished checking all the 95 years given by Dionysius. I used astronomical software to determine the equinox, and the first full moon after the equinox in each year. That much is just astronomical mathematics.

Then I checked against the full moon and easter dates given by Dionysius. In many case the full moon dates did not coincide, but were 1 day out.

However, when I checked for the date of the following Sunday, in every case my calculation matched Dionysius.

 "Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged." This is the argument I am missing. Why does the almost perfect match with the astronomical software prove that the document has been forged? Please give premisses which support that conclusion.

[EDIT] I note you gave a link again to support your conclusion. I have already read the contents of that link. In no way does the information support your conclusion. Please provide a proper argument.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 7, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Please provide a proper argument.


You already did.



Grosseteste said:


> Then I checked against the full moon and easter dates given by Dionysius. In many case the full moon dates did not coincide, but were 1 day out.


Exactly. That is precisely how we now know that Exiguus' Easter Tables were forged.


Grosseteste said:


> "Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged." This is the argument I am missing. Why does the almost perfect match with the astronomical software prove that the document has been forged? Please give premisses which support that conclusion.


Is this supposed to be a joke? 

You wrote:



> I have confirmed that for all the dates in the table on the website *which I have checked* (I haven't checked them all), the passover and Easter dates coincide.



Yet, on Exiguus' own Easter Tables, these dates DO NOT COINCIDE at all. You think anyone else would have trusted anything Exiguus had to say on astronomical matters? His Easter Tables would have been dismissed as worthless in no time at all. Why didn't Exiguus correct the first entry that was wrong? The second? The third? The fourth?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 7, 2021)

I've already stated exactly what I did above. There are two sets of dates to check. The first set is of full moons following the equinox. The dates are at most 1 day out from the astronomically calculated dates. However when I check the dates for the Sunday following the full moon, these match exactly. That's all. 

Why does the mismatch for the full moon calculation (which is difficult) prove his table was a forgery, rather than a (small) mistake? 

A further test I could run is to move the sequence of years into the future to see if there is another set of dates which his data matches.

[EDIT] To be precise. Of the 95 years given by Dionysius, in 46 the date of the full moon is given correctly. In 44 cases, he gives the date 1 day too early. In 5 cases, 2 days too early. total 95

In all cases he gives the Easter date correctly.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

Now I begin to understand Nosovsky's. It's not that "Dionysius estimates the full moon date incorrectly, therefore his work is forged".

Rather "Dionysius estimates the full moon date correctly, but relative to a much later date in history".

To test this hypothesis, see the table below. The first column is the year. The second is the date that the first full moon date after the equinox, calculated using modern astronomical software. The third is Dionysius' estimate for the 19 year period 532-550 projected forward using the 19 year rule (namely the approximate rule that the full moon date repeats after a 19 year cycle).

I can do this for any 19 year sequence. Now if Nosovsky's hypothesis is correct, we should be able to find some sequence after 532-550 where Dionysius' estimate agrees with the astronomical full moon date. But that looks impossible. To see why, consider that sometimes D estimates the date correctly, sometimes overestimates, sometimes underestimates. That would not be true if Nosovsky's hypothesis were correct. There would either be complete agreement, or consistent overestimate, or consistent underestimate. But we do not see this. QED.


Year	AFM	DFM
722	06-Apr	05-Apr
723	26-Mar	25-Mar
724	13-Apr	13-Apr
725	02-Apr	02-Apr
726	22-Mar	22-Mar
727	10-Apr	10-Apr
728	30-Mar	30-Mar
729	18-Apr	18-Apr
730	08-Apr	07-Apr
731	28-Mar	27-Mar
732	15-Apr	15-Apr
733	04-Apr	04-Apr
734	24-Mar	24-Mar
735	12-Apr	12-Apr
736	31-Mar	01-Apr
737	21-Mar	21-Mar
738	09-Apr	09-Apr
739	30-Mar	29-Mar
740	16-Apr	17-Apr


----------



## Daniel (Jun 8, 2021)

One interesting thing relative to this is that the Council of Trent/Trident is said to have gone on for 18 years(1545-1563).

Much of what was discussed and canonised during Trent would certainly have been canonized centuries(at least) prior to the 16th century, IF the chronology was correct. And IF previous Councils(such as Nicaea) had ever actually taken place.

Then there's the fact that there's a certain Dionysius Petavius, who lived in the 16th/17th centuries, and whose life eerily parallels that of his "Classical" namesake.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Now I begin to understand Nosovsky's.


No.
Exiguus failed to record the correct dates for the Passover (four times right during his lifetime). His Easter Tables would have been thrown in the sewer at once. 



Daniel said:


> Much of what was discussed and canonised during Trent would certainly have been canonized centuries(at least) prior to the 16th century, IF the chronology was correct. And IF previous Councils(such as Nicaea) had ever actually taken place.
> 
> Then there's the fact that there's a certain Dionysius Petavius, who lived in the 16th/17th centuries, and whose life eerily parallels that of his "Classical" namesake.


Yes.

mod note: ad hominem attack removed


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.

I was not referring to your work (research), but to your conclusions.

Exiguus failed to record the correct dates of the Passover, four times right during his lifetime. No corrections, no uproar, nothing at all. His Easter tables are a failure, which no one would have accepted in any shape possible. You have to accept that his works/biography are a forgery.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.
> 
> I was not referring to your work (research), but to *your conclusions*.



Precisely which conclusions? One conclusion was that "if Nosovsky's hypothesis is correct, we should be able to find some sequence after 532-550 where Dionysius' estimate agrees with the astronomical full moon date. But that looks impossible."


sandokhan said:


> I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.



I am not looking just for the 'Easter date', but also the date of the vernal equinox, and the date of the next full moon, for any year. I stated this clearly. Also, I wanted to check that the Easter date was in fact a Sunday.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

I invite everyone here to weigh in with their opinion on this matter, because it is truly important.

Here are the facts.

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter, or, the Paschal Cycle (2003)

Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, created the Easter Tables, the main tenet on which Scaliger based his own chronology of history.

Here are some of the dates recorded for the Passover:

519 AD - March 30

523 AD - April 15

536 AD - March 22

543 AD - April 4

All of these dates occurred during his lifetime (as recorded by the official chronology of history).

563 AD - March 24

570 AD - April 5

590 AD - March 25

594 AD - April 10

614 AD - March 30

Now, the *correct dates*:

519 AD - March 31

523 AD - April 16

536 AD - March 23

543 AD - April 5

563 AD - March 25

570 AD - April 6

590 AD - March 26

594 AD - April 11

614 AD - March 31

If we check Exiguus' dates against the Gauss Easter formula, something unimaginable emerges: his entries are fake:






Conclusion: Exiguus' works/biography were forged much later in time. Since Pope John I approved this entries, his bio is fake as well. So is Bede's. Exiguus' easter tables would have remembered as a massive failure, actually a catastrophe of sorts. Yet, he does not even correct the first entry (519 AD). Which is astounding.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Here are some of the dates recorded for the Passover:



Correction: Dionysius says that he is recording "quae sit luna XIIII paschalis", i.e. the 14th day of the Easter moon, not the Passover. We don't know for sure what dates the Hebrews used. There is evidence they celebrated in March in those days.



> If we check Exiguus' dates against the Gauss Easter formula, something unimaginable emerges: his entries are fake:



Let's spell your argument out: you are suggesting that if the document contains errors, the document is fake. 

Anyone who agrees with that argument, is agreeing that every document that contains errors, is a fake document. I certainly wouldn't agree with that. For example, I know of many documents containing errors that are not faked.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

*Passover* begins on the day of the *paschal moon.*


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> *Passover* begins on the day of the *paschal moon.*



Now it does. Probably not in the 6th century. Also, you should have said "paschal FULL moon". The paschal moon begins with the new moon, the full moon occurs on the 14th day.

Merriam Webster, paschal moon: "_the lunar month_ whose 14th day falls on or next following March 21 according"


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

See, again you are trying to deflect attention from the main issue: Exiguus recorded the WRONG dates multiple times, even during his lifetime. He is simply a fictional character.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> See, again you are trying to deflect attention from the main issue: Exiguus recorded the WRONG dates multiple times, even during his lifetime. He is simply a fictional character.



So not only is every document that contains a mistake a faked document, but also every document that contains a mistake is written by a fictional character? (Puzzled).


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

Those are simply impossible mistakes. Unpardonable. As soon as Exiguus would have recorded the wrong entry for the year 519 AD, his career in astronomical dating would have been over. And yet, he goes on to record THREE additional erroneous Passover dates, and Pope John I approves of his entries. Not a chance.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Those are simply impossible mistakes. Unpardonable.



Why? Finding the exact time of the full moon was challenging without modern equipment.

And as it happens, Mercier's software says that a full moon occurred on 6 Apr 513, Dionysius says 5 Apr 513.

But the full illumination did not occur until the early hours of 6 April, and the illumination on the evening of the 5th was greater than the illumination on the 6th, so hardly an 'unpardonable' mistake. We are talking an error of a few hours.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica and Life of Constantine), the canons of the Council of Antioch (341 AD) and of the Council of Laodicea show clearly that it was forbidden to celebrate the Easter on the same date as that of the Passover. The fourth Carthaginian council (398 AD) again enforces those canons. 

Surely someone must have noticed that Exiguus' easter date calculations for the year 519 AD were wrong, and that in that year the Passover coincided with the Easter. In the official chronology of history, no one notices anything at all, not even Dionysius Exiguus, who leaves the date unchanged. The same thing for the years 523 AD, 536 AD, 543 AD. No one is complaining (not even pope John I), no other historian utters a word, and Exiguus leaves the wrong dates in the Easter Tables. Then, five more entries have the wrong dates in his Easter Tables (563 AD, 570 AD, 590 AD, 594 AD, 614 AD). Since there was such a huge controversy regarding the coincidence of the Passover and of the Easter (on the same day), there must have been at least one voice to point out the discrepancies in Exiguus' computations. And Exiguus himself must have noticed that his computations, in certain years, were not correct, and indeed should have (in fact must have) modified the original entries to reflect the astronomical reality. Yet, nothing happened. Whoever falsified the Easter Tables did not have at his disposal the Gauss Easter formula to precisely calculate the Paschal moon for each year, and simply filled in the Easter Tables with the figures obtained from the Metonic cycle.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Surely someone must have *noticed* that Exiguus' easter date calculations for the year 519 AD was wrong



The error here is larger (D has 30 March, the moon was at full illumination only by 31 March), and supports your hypothesis better.

But how exactly would people have 'noticed' the difference? I suspect that D was not making astronomical observations, but rather extrapolating from old tables. If so, there would have been no disconfirming evidence available.

On your point about the Passover, we really don't know what month the Hebrews observed Passover in the 6th century. There is evidence it was before the equinox, not after.


sandokhan said:


> Whoever falsified the Easter Tables did not have at his disposal the Gauss Easter formula to precisely calculate the Paschal moon for each year, and simply filled in the Easter Tables with the figures obtained from the Metonic cycle.



Right, I agree that D probably used the Metonic cycle, extrapolating from the old Greek ms. But why does that mean he falsified anything?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

The catatonic use of the Metonic cycle for Exiguus' Easter tables betrays someone who lived much later in time. In a real life situation, he must have modified the wrong entries right after he had noticed they did not correspond with the computed Paschal full moon. No modification, on such multiple dates, means that the tables were assembled by someone else, who obviously did not have the Gauss easter formula for immediate use, and simply utilized the Metonic cycle to fill in the entries.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> In a real life situation, he must have [i.e. _would have_] modified the wrong entries right after he had _noticed_ they did not _correspond_ with the computed Paschal full moon.



I asked earlier exactly what he would have 'noticed'. How would he have noticed that anything was wrong?

You imply he is checking one thing against another. What are those two things?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

We are not dealing with a parallel universe where the Paschal full moon only fell on Saturday (500 AD - 600 AD). In this universe, there were multiple times where the Passover coincided with the Easter, right within that period. A fact which was well known to have occurred in the official chronology of history. And yet, Exiguus is recording mechanically the entries using only the Metonic cycle as his guide. As if nothing else was occurring. 

As if this is not enough he assigns the date Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD for the first Easter, something that could have been achieved only retroactively.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> We are not dealing with a parallel universe where the Paschal full moon only fell on Saturday (500 AD - 600 AD). In this universe, there were multiple times where the Passover coincided with the Easter, right within that period. A fact which was well known to have occurred in the official chronology of history. And yet, Exiguus is recording mechanically the entries using only the Metonic cycle as his guide. As if nothing else was occurring.
> 
> As if this is not enough he assigns the date Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD for the first Easter, something that could have been achieved only retroactively.



My question was, what was he checking against what? Your point was that in real life he 'would have noticed'. What is it that he would have noticed?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 8, 2021)

You already know the answer to your question, but it seems you do not want to find out what that response entails.

Everyone would have noticed/recorded a Paschal full moon on a Sunday, for those particular years listed earlier. If Exiguus would have not observed this directly, somebody else would have told him. Very easy to understand.

The universe which can be deduced from the Easter tables created by Exiguus, is one where the Paschal full moon only falls on Saturday, never on Sunday. A universe where the Metonic cycle suffices to calculate these dates. And yet the Easter and the Passover coincided multiple times: in this universe, those particular entries would have fully reflected the astronomical situation or reality. Moreover, the date Saturday March 24 1,095 AD could only have been calculated retroactively. Was not Exiguus trying to find out when the first Easter occurred? Yes he was. Why then would he assign March 24, 1,095 AD for the first Easter, unless he was computing it retroactively?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 8, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Everyone would have noticed/recorded a Paschal full moon on a Sunday, for those particular years listed earlier. If Exiguus would have not observed this directly, somebody else would have told him. Very easy to understand.



I'm still not sure I understand you. Let's take year 522, when the true full moon occurred on 28 March, a Monday, but D thought the full moon was actually on 27 March, a Sunday.  He recorded the date of Easter as 3 April, the Sunday after. That agrees with the rules for Easter. What's the problem.

[EDIT] There was a similar situation in 526 and 546, probably other dates.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

You are not addressing any of the issues that were raised here.

Whoever came up with the date March 24, 1,095 AD, was trying to look into the past, and certainly not trying to _predict_ the first Easter.

Exiguus lives in a universe where the Paschal full moon only occurs on Saturday. He uses the Metonic cycle mechanically, without making the necessary corrections for the years listed. No one else seems to care. There is no research into understanding why some of the Passover dates fall on a Sunday. 

I have proven to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the biography attributed to Dionysius Exiguus was cooked up much later in time.

Now, we have another huge problem: the extension of the Easter cycle by Beda Venerabilis (Bede). We are told that he had extended the calculation of the Easter up to 1,253 AD. Why then did not Bede see immediately that Exiguus had already predicted that the First Easter was going to occur on Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Exiguus lives in a universe where the Paschal full moon only occurs on Saturday.


Not correct. I already explained above why this statement is wrong.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

You did not address any of the issues. Your previous statement even proves my points more readily. If the true full moon occurred on 28 March, a Monday, but Exiguus thought the full moon was actually on 27 March, a Sunday, you have huge problem, yet again. Why didn't Exiguus record the CORRECT DATE as an entry for his Easter Tables? Each and every time there is a discrepancy, Exiguus records, always, the wrong date.

You are dodging what we are discussing here in this thread. Whoever came up with the date March 24, 1,095 AD, was trying to look into the past, and certainly not trying to _predict_ the first Easter.


sandokhan said:


> The universe which can be deduced from the Easter tables created by Exiguus, is one where the Paschal full moon only falls on Saturday, never on Sunday. A universe where the Metonic cycle suffices to calculate these dates. And yet the Easter and the Passover coincided multiple times: in this universe, those particular entries would have fully reflected the astronomical situation or reality. Moreover, the date Saturday March 24 1,095 AD could only have been calculated retroactively. Was not Exiguus trying to find out when the first Easter occurred? Yes he was. Why then would he assign March 24, 1,095 AD for the first Easter, unless he was computing it retroactively?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> If the true full moon occurred on 28 March, a Monday, but Exiguus thought the full moon was actually on 27 March, a Sunday, you have huge problem, yet again. Why didn't Exiguus record the CORRECT DATE as an entry for his Easter Tables?



A very simple answer: at that period (6th century AD) it was not possible to determine the date of the full moon with any accuracy. On 27 March the moon was still 99.8% illuminated.

I've made this point a few times, that's enough.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

It was determined very well in all of the previous centuries, with no problems at all. How else could the Church have possibly known that the Passover had fallen on a Sunday, and not Saturday? Obviously, those canons were written down because everyone knew that from time to time the Passover fell on Sunday.

Again, you are not addressing the main points: why did Exiguus, always, record the wrong dates? Why did he leave the wrong dates in his Easter tables, and no one else had a word to say about it, even though it was very obvious that the Passover had occurred on a Sunday? The Metonic cycle was not working for the dates where the Passover coincided with the Easter, yet Exiguus keeps on using it, as if nothing happened at all. He fails to record the correct dates. Are you saying that Exiguus was trying to predict the First Easter in March 24, 1,095 AD? You retroactively try to find out the date of the First Easter, certainly not in any case to predict it!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Again, you are not addressing the main points: why did Exiguus, always, record the wrong dates? [i.e. dates of full moon]



He didn't _always_ record the wrong date. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets a day too late, sometimes a day too early. And he _always_ gets the date of Easter right, by my calculation.

And I have already addressed 'the main point' twice above: Exiguus got the dates wrong because there was no astronomical equipment to determine this accurately. It's a very simple explanation, and to be preferred to your 'explanation' that involves re-writing all of history, including the history of my own house, apparently.

I think this is the main difference between us. I have offered a simple explanation (Exiguus could not determine the time of full moon accurately, although he was close), you have offered a very complex and improbable one (all of history is wrong).

That is all.



> even though it was very obvious that the Passover had occurred on a Sunday



You persistently confuse Passover, which is a religious event, and the date of the full moon. We don't know when the Passover event occurred on those dates. We do know when the full moon occurred, because we have astronomical software.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

You are playing word games with me. Exiguus ALWAYS records the wrong dates, when the Passover coincides with the Easter. Always. You are trying to dodge the issue and mix together all of the dates at once. 

A true astronomer would have recorded the CORRECT dates, and try to find out what is going on. No one else would have accepted Dionysius' Easter tables if they had contained some very wrong dates. It is absolutely impossible for Exiguus to have left the wrong dates for the cases where the Passover coincided with the Easter.

Furthermore, you are not addressing the second issue: why did Exiguus assign the date Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD for the First Easter? You think he was trying to predict it? You retroactively try to find out the date of the First Easter, certainly not in any case to predict it!



Grosseteste said:


> You persistently confuse Passover, which is a religious event, and the date of the full moon.


I am not confusing anything at all, you are. The Paschal moon occurrs together with the Passover.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> You are playing word games with me. Exiguus ALWAYS records the wrong dates, when the Passover coincides with the Easter. Always.



I can find three dates (21 Mar 566, 18 April 577, 22 Mar 593) when Dionysius' date for full moon agrees with astronomical date. On all these occasions, he pushes Easter to the Sunday after the full moon, as was customary.



> I am not confusing anything at all, you are. The Paschal moon occurrs together with the Passover.



Evidence for that? Passover did not have to occur on a Sunday. We simply do not know very much about the rules used for Passover in the first millennium. See _Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar_, 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE by Sacha Stern, probably the foremost expert on the subject. Prof Sacha Stern


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

Again, you are dodging and evading the main issues.






The years 566, 577, 593 are not in question. You are not addressing what we are discussing here, the fact that Exiguus had recorded, ALWAYS, the wrong dates for the instances where the Passover coincided with the Easter.



Grosseteste said:


> Evidence for that?





sandokhan said:


> Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica and Life of Constantine), the canons of the Council of Antioch (341 AD) and of the Council of Laodicea show clearly that it was forbidden to celebrate the Easter on the same date as that of the Passover. The fourth Carthaginian council (398 AD) again enforces those canons.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> You are not addressing what we are discussing here, the fact that Exiguus had recorded, ALWAYS, the wrong dates for the instances where the Passover coincided with the Easter.



Incorrect, read my post again, and on the Passover I again strongly suggest you read the book I recommended: _Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar_, 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE by Sacha Stern, who knows more about the subject than anyone here.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

But I am correct: you are evading the main issues with each and every message you write. Prof. Stern does not address what we are discussing here: the fact that several church Councils (4th and 5th centuries) had forbidden for the Easter to be celebrated on the same day as that of the Passover. In the official chronology of history, certainly those people knew very well when the Passover did occur, otherwise what would have been the point to issue those canons?

Exiguus could not have predicted the date for the First Easter to fall on Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD. Only someone who was calculating retroactively the First Easter, could have accomplished such a task. Exiguus always records the wrong date (which is impossible) when the Passover and the Easter had coincided.

Now, let me bring in the heavy artillery.

*Moon elongation parameter dating*

The Moon's Acceleration



> "Understanding the moon's orbit around Earth is a difficult mathematical problem. Isaac Newton was the first to consider it, and it took more than two centuries until the American mathematician George William Hill found a suitable framework in which to address this question.





> The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.





> Among the other experts in celestial mechanics who attacked this problem was Robert Newton from Johns Hopkins University. In 1979, he published the first volume of a book that considered the issue by looking at historical solar eclipses. Five years later, he came up with a second volume, which approached the problem from the point of view of lunar observations. His conclusion was that the behavior of D'' could be explained only by factoring in some unknown forces.





> Newton's results can be interpreted similarly: if we exclude the possibility of mysterious forces, his graph puts traditional ancient and medieval chronology in doubt."



https://image.ibb.co/kOHkBJ/dp1.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/kC1HQd/dp2.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/ecjhrJ/dp3.jpg

A. T. FOMENKO, THE JUMP OF THE SECOND DERIVATIVE OF THE MOON'S ELONGATION



> It is important for some computational astronomical problems to know the behaviour of D'' -- the second derivative of the Moon's elongation - as a function of the time, on a rather long segment of the time line. This problem, particularly, was talked about during the discussion organized in 1972 by the London Royal Society and British Academy of Sciences. The scheme of the calculation of D'' is as follows: we are to fix the totality of ancient observations of eclipses, then calculate. on the basis of the modern theory, when these observations were made, and then compare the results of the calculations with the observed parameters to evaluate the Moon's acceleration.





> Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, *unexplainable by present geophysical theories* ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs".







D" parameter, new chronology of history:





Dr. Robert Newton, Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy:

R. R. Newton, "Two uses of ancient astronomy"

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

R.R.Newton, "Astronomical evidence..."

Each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 500 BC - 1200 AD is proven to be false.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

And now we are back to the problems discussed in the other thread: massive copy pasting of irrelevant texts and unrelated links.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 9, 2021)

Not at all. No historical astronomical dating for the period we are investigating here (500 AD - 1200 AD) can be trusted. They were simply all wrong. It certainly proves my point that Exiguus was a fictional character invented much later in time.

How is this irrelevant, when you are not able even to address the main issues we are discussing here?


sandokhan said:


> Exiguus could not have predicted the date for the First Easter to fall on Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD. Only someone who was calculating retroactively the First Easter, could have accomplished such a task. Exiguus always records the wrong date (which is impossible) when the Passover and the Easter had coincided.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 9, 2021)

I would be interested in the views of others on this subject. As I have said above, I can make no sense whatsoever of Sandokhan's "arguments".


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 9, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I can make no sense whatsoever of Sandokhan's "arguments".


Who can?


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 9, 2021)

As I have already told sandokhan, he is now limited to a single thread on the forum, and can't reply anywhere else. He's clashing with so many other users it would seriously damage the quality of content in our forum over time.

Also this thread is now locked as it's already full of distracting arguments, but you are free to create a new thread to continue your discussions.


----------

