TSAR OF THE SLAVS
Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
In the ecclesiastical tradition there is an accepted view that Christ was born on the 41st or 42nd year of Augustus’ rule. ‘The Roman bishop Irenaeus and Tertullian thought that ‘Christ Our Lord came to this world circa the 41st year of Augustus’ rule’. Eusebius of Caesarea speaks more concretely: 'It was the 42nd year of Augustus’ rule, and the 28th year of the Egyptian reign … when … in Judean Bethlehem … Jesus Christ was born’ … Epiphanius indicates … the 42nd year of Augustus … The Greek historian John Malalas … dated ‘The Nativity of Christ’ as … the 42nd year of Augustus, and ‘The Paschal Chronicle’ placed it in the 28th year of Augustus reign in Egypt, ‘the consulate of Lentulus and Piso’’ [73], p.331-332. In Svyatsy (church calendar) of the Moscow press published in 1649 it is said: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ was born to Blessed Virgin Mary incontestably, incomprehensibly and infinitely on the 42nd summer of king Augustus, the sole ruler of the universe at that time’ (Svyatsy for the 25th December). Thus many church writers and chroniclers claimed that Christ was born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. A question arises – where did this date come from? We will try to get to the bottom of it.
As we saw, the year of the nativity of Christ is most likely 1151. Having deducted 41 from 1152 we obtain year 1111. But taking into consideration a possible typical hundred year discrepancy which we spoke of just now, it is necessary to view the alternatives of the years 1101 and 1211. The question is whether the reign of Augustus began during one of the stated years according to the mediaeval chroniclers. Yes, it did. Our study of Ptolemy’s Almagest showed that the era of Nabonassar used by Ptolemy as the standard era throughout his entire work, most likely is simply the common Byzantine era from the creation of the world. The only difference is that Ptolemy leaves out the thousand digit everywhere and gives only the last three digits of the date. It is clear why he did so. The epoch described in the Almagest ENTIRELY LIES WITHIN THE SAME SEVENTH MILLENNIUM according to the era from the creation of the world. And it was completely unnecessary each time to add ‘six thousand to all the dates. See the details in the ‘Astronomicheskii analiz khronologii’ (‘The Astronomical Analysis of the Chronology’), p.470-471 or CHRON3, ch.10.
In particular Ptolemy mentioned the first year of Augustus’ reign. Taking into account the previous comments, it is precisely the year 1211, see [MET3]:3, p.471.
It seems that the chroniclers of the XIV-XVI cc. when attempting to date the Nativity of Christ either shifted the nativity forward by a 100 years, or Augustus’ reign by a hundred years to the past. It resulted in Christ being born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. Which was entered into the chronicles.
On the whole, the epoch of the earliest chronological calculations the results of which survive today, is probably the epoch of the Christianity of the XIV-XV cc. By then the XII century – the epoch of Christ – was already a considerable antiquity. Two hundred years for those times, when they still were writing on the papyrus and parchment paper, was not little at all. Where the common chronology did not exist yet. They calculated in their own way in different places, and in general, according to the reign of the kings. Whose names were easily forgotten and mixed up.
"Hiistory is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there"
George Santayana
Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
In the ecclesiastical tradition there is an accepted view that Christ was born on the 41st or 42nd year of Augustus’ rule. ‘The Roman bishop Irenaeus and Tertullian thought that ‘Christ Our Lord came to this world circa the 41st year of Augustus’ rule’. Eusebius of Caesarea speaks more concretely: 'It was the 42nd year of Augustus’ rule, and the 28th year of the Egyptian reign … when … in Judean Bethlehem … Jesus Christ was born’ … Epiphanius indicates … the 42nd year of Augustus … The Greek historian John Malalas … dated ‘The Nativity of Christ’ as … the 42nd year of Augustus, and ‘The Paschal Chronicle’ placed it in the 28th year of Augustus reign in Egypt, ‘the consulate of Lentulus and Piso’’ [73], p.331-332. In Svyatsy (church calendar) of the Moscow press published in 1649 it is said: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ was born to Blessed Virgin Mary incontestably, incomprehensibly and infinitely on the 42nd summer of king Augustus, the sole ruler of the universe at that time’ (Svyatsy for the 25th December). Thus many church writers and chroniclers claimed that Christ was born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. A question arises – where did this date come from? We will try to get to the bottom of it.
As we saw, the year of the nativity of Christ is most likely 1151. Having deducted 41 from 1152 we obtain year 1111. But taking into consideration a possible typical hundred year discrepancy which we spoke of just now, it is necessary to view the alternatives of the years 1101 and 1211. The question is whether the reign of Augustus began during one of the stated years according to the mediaeval chroniclers. Yes, it did. Our study of Ptolemy’s Almagest showed that the era of Nabonassar used by Ptolemy as the standard era throughout his entire work, most likely is simply the common Byzantine era from the creation of the world. The only difference is that Ptolemy leaves out the thousand digit everywhere and gives only the last three digits of the date. It is clear why he did so. The epoch described in the Almagest ENTIRELY LIES WITHIN THE SAME SEVENTH MILLENNIUM according to the era from the creation of the world. And it was completely unnecessary each time to add ‘six thousand to all the dates. See the details in the ‘Astronomicheskii analiz khronologii’ (‘The Astronomical Analysis of the Chronology’), p.470-471 or CHRON3, ch.10.
In particular Ptolemy mentioned the first year of Augustus’ reign. Taking into account the previous comments, it is precisely the year 1211, see [MET3]:3, p.471.
It seems that the chroniclers of the XIV-XVI cc. when attempting to date the Nativity of Christ either shifted the nativity forward by a 100 years, or Augustus’ reign by a hundred years to the past. It resulted in Christ being born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. Which was entered into the chronicles.
On the whole, the epoch of the earliest chronological calculations the results of which survive today, is probably the epoch of the Christianity of the XIV-XV cc. By then the XII century – the epoch of Christ – was already a considerable antiquity. Two hundred years for those times, when they still were writing on the papyrus and parchment paper, was not little at all. Where the common chronology did not exist yet. They calculated in their own way in different places, and in general, according to the reign of the kings. Whose names were easily forgotten and mixed up.
"Hiistory is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there"
George Santayana