Dating and Chronology

[Deleted member 37]

@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]

@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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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

Page reference please.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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

 

[Grosseteste]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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

This part:


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

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]

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]

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 316, 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]

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 316, 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]

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

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

Dr. G. Nosovsky:

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

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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.