It is believed that the first year of the “new era” as the year of the Nativity of Christ was calculated by the Roman monk Dionysius the Small in the 6th century AD. e., that is, more than 500 years after the event he dates. At the same time, Dionysius first calculated the date of the Resurrection of Christ, and then used the church tradition that Christ was crucified in the 31st year of his life. The date of the Resurrection, according to Dionysius, is March 25, 5539 from Adam, and the year of the Nativity of Christ, therefore, is 5508 from Adam (according to the Byzantine era).
The authors of the new chronology note that Dionysius’ calculations are actually incorrect (due to the insufficient development of astronomy at that time). Their fallacy became known already in the 16th-17th centuries, and since then several attempts have been made to count for Dionysius and correct the dates of the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ.
Let us list some of the attempts to “correct Dionysius”:
- Christ rose again on April 5, 33 AD. e. at 34 years old;
- Christ rose again on April 5, 33 AD. e. at 33 years old(the most widespread opinion until recently; arose in the 19th or 20th century);
- Christ rose again on April 9, 30 AD. e., and was born several years BC. e.(modern point of view of the Roman Catholic Church).
None of the above solutions satisfy the calendar “conditions of the Resurrection.” Moreover, it turns out that near the beginning of “AD” there are no dates at all that satisfy these conditions.
In other words, if Dionysius knew modern astronomy, he could not even come close to indicating the year of Christ's birth where he indicated it - at the beginning of our era. Unfortunately, when astronomical data became sufficient to understand this (and this happened only in the 17th century), the “new era” and the date of the “Nativity of Christ” were already widespread in the West and canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and then by the Orthodox Church church.
Naturally, the question arises: what are the calendar “conditions of the Resurrection”?
Church tradition, in agreement with the Gospels, states that Christ was resurrected on March 25, Sunday the day after the Jewish Passover, which, therefore, fell this time on March 24 (Saturday). It was these “Easter conditions,” which we will call “conditions of the Resurrection,” that Dionysius had in mind when he carried out his calculations of the date of the Resurrection of Christ, and then the Nativity of Christ.
The fact that Christ was resurrected the day after the Jewish Passover is clearly stated in the Gospel of John. This is also confirmed by church tradition and the entire medieval tradition.
A complete set of calendar conditions accompanying, according to stable church tradition, the Resurrection of Christ can be found in the “Collection of Patristic Rules” by Matthew Blastar:
“For the Lord suffered for our salvation in 5539, when the circle of the sun was 23, the circle of the moon was 10, and the Jews had the Passover on Saturday (as the evangelists write) March 24. On the Sunday following this Saturday, March 25... Christ was resurrected.
The legal Passover (Jewish) is celebrated at the equinox on the 14th moon (that is, on the full moon) - from March 21 to April 18 - our Passover is celebrated on the following Sunday.”
Matthew Blastar gives the following calendar instructions for the year of the Resurrection of Christ:
1) circle to the sun 23;
2) circle of the moon 10;
3) the day before, March 24, there was the Jewish Passover, celebrated on the day of the 14th moon (that is, on the full moon);
4) the Jewish Passover was on Saturday, and Christ was resurrected on Sunday.
Nosovsky and Fomenko conducted computer calculations for each year from 100 BC. e. before 1700 AD e. The day of the spring full moon (14th moon, or Jewish Easter) was calculated using Gauss's formulas, and Christian Easter, the circle of the sun and the circle of the moon - according to Paschal. Just like Dionysius (and Matthew Blastar), they assumed that the day of the Resurrection was Easter day according to Paschal.
As a result of the study, they came to the conclusion that the calendar “conditions of the Resurrection” were fulfilled only once: in 1095 AD e.
The Nativity of Christ thus refers approximately to 1064 AD e. - 31 years before 1095 AD. e.
Date 1095 AD e. ideally corresponds to the new chronology constructed in the works of A.T. Fomenko.
Comparing it with the dating of the First Ecumenical Council, we see that it turns out that the First Ecumenical Council took place before the incarnation of Christ. Does this contradict church tradition? It turns out not. This certainly contradicts only the view of the history of the Church, which was formed no earlier than the 14th-15th centuries, but not church tradition.
Ancient texts have preserved for us the “conditions of the Resurrection,” which make it possible to unambiguously restore the sought-after date.
Let us take a closer look at the “conditions of the Resurrection” 1-4. They are not equal. Conditions 3 and 4 are known from many sources and constitute a stable church tradition. Conditions 1 and 2 are very specific calendar guidelines. What happens if you try to satisfy only two conditions 3 and 4?
As shown by a computer calculation carried out by the authors of the new chronology, “conditions of the Resurrection” 3 and 4 for the period of time from 100 BC. e. before 1700 AD e. were carried out only in the following years:
1) 42 (BC);
2) 53 AD e.;
3) 137 AD e.;
4) 479 AD e.;
5) 574 AD e.;
6) 658 AD e.;
7) 753 AD e.;
8) 848 AD e.;
9) 1095 AD e. (satisfies the full set of conditions 1-4);
10) 1190 AD e.
It is easy to see that here too there is not a single solution that would satisfy the traditional chronology.
The widespread church tradition, clearly reflected in the Gospel of John and in the writings of many church writers, cannot be reconciled with the date of Christ's birth around the beginning of our era. In order to achieve such agreement, it is necessary to shift the date of the Nativity of Christ at least 70 years ago or at least 20 years forward. If we add here also conditions 1-2, then the solution becomes unambiguous and gives the 11th century AD. e.
Fomenko and Nosovsky consider the substantive meaning of the obtained “date of the Resurrection of Christ” - March 25, 1095 AD. e.
March 25, 1095 AD e. was the day of the so-called “Kyrio-Easter” (that is, “royal Easter”, “Easter of the high priest”) - Easter, which coincided with the Annunciation (March 25). Kyriopascha is a rather rare event. In church tradition it is associated with the coming of Christ.
According to the Gospels and church tradition, in the year of the Nativity of Christ, a new star flashed in the east, and 31 years later, in the year of the Resurrection, a total solar eclipse occurred. Church sources clearly speak specifically about a solar eclipse in connection with the Resurrection of Christ, and do not always refer it to Good Friday. Note that a solar eclipse in a given area, and even more so a total solar eclipse, is an extremely rare event. Biblical science of the 18th-19th centuries, having not, naturally, discovered the Gospel solar eclipse “where it should be” in Palestine at the beginning of the century. e., converted it into a lunar one. This, however, still did not help - an exactly suitable lunar eclipse was not found either. However, since then it has become common to believe that the Gospels describe not a solar eclipse, but a lunar eclipse.
Fomenko and Nosovsky consider the initial point of view, reflected in the primary sources, according to which the eclipse was solar.
It turns out that such a pair of rare astronomical events - the outbreak of a new star and 31 years later - a total solar eclipse in the Mediterranean, really happened, but not in the 1st, but in the 11th century AD. e.! This is the famous nova explosion in 1054 and total solar eclipse on February 16, 1086(on Monday). The shadow of this eclipse passed through Italy and Byzantium.
It is curious that traces of mentions of Christ in medieval chronicles dating back to the 11th century have survived even to this day. For example, a chronograph from 1680 reports that Pope Leo IX was visited by Christ himself: “It is narrated that Christ, in the form of a beggar, visited him (Leo IX) in a spoon.” It is important that this is the only mention of this kind, except in cases of retelling of the Gospels.
As 1 year according to "R.H." Many chronicles imply 1054 AD. e. (the so-called “major shift of 1053 years in chronology”). This means that medieval chroniclers often dated the Nativity of Christ precisely to 1054 (or 1053).
Apparently, these are traces of another tradition dating the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ to the era of the 11th century AD. e. According to this tradition, Christmas was in 1054, the year of the nova, and the Resurrection was in 1086, when a total solar eclipse was observed.
By the way, the beginning of the First Crusade - the campaign “for the liberation of the Holy Sepulcher” - dates back to 1096. On the other hand, medieval church sources, which often describe events related to Christ in more detail than the Gospels, claim that immediately after the Resurrection, Pilate was summoned to Rome and executed there, and Caesar's troops were sent to attack Jerusalem and captured it. . Today it is believed that these are medieval speculations, since in Scaliger’s chronology there is no Roman campaign against Jerusalem in the 30s of the 1st century AD. e. No. However, if the Resurrection dates back to the end of the 11th century, this statement of medieval sources takes on a literal meaning - meaning the First Crusade, during which Jerusalem was taken. If we date the Resurrection to 1095, it turns out that the crusade began the very next year - exactly as described in the mentioned medieval texts.
Where did the Crusader troops go to liberate the Holy Sepulcher? Naturally, the reader will say, to Jerusalem. This is true. But the fact is that Jerusalem at that time was called, as we have already said, a city located on the site of modern Istanbul, which was the capital of the Second Rome. This means that Christ was crucified not on the territory of modern Jerusalem, which is located in Israel, but on the territory of modern Turkey. This, it turns out, is why the Crusader troops fought with Byzantium. There was a war for the Holy Sepulcher.
According to the Gospels, Mount Golgotha (on which Christ was crucified) was located somewhere in or near Jerusalem. When they mistakenly identified Jerusalem with the Palestinian village of El-Quds, they naturally tried to “find” a suitable mountain here. However, these attempts, Fomenko and Nosovsky believe, should be considered unsuccessful. Because what is offered to us today as the gospel Calvary is a small hill, which, if desired, can be found almost anywhere. Is there a place near Istanbul that could be fairly reliably identified with the Gospel Golgotha?
It turns out there is. This is the highest mountain on the Upper Bosphorus called Beykos. At the very top of this mountain there is a gigantic symbolic grave called the “Tomb of Jesus” (Yushi in Turkish). According to the reconstruction of the new chronology, this is the famous evangelical Mount Golgotha, that is, the site of the crucifixion of Christ.
Here is what the famous Muslim author of the 19th century, Jelal Essad, writes about this: “Following along the Asian coast of the Bosphorus, we reach a small pier called Syut-lyudzhe, from where the path leads to the highest mountain of the Upper Bosphorus (to Golgotha, according to Fomenko and Nosovsky). At the top of this mountain (180 meters above sea level) there is the grave of Joshua (Jush)... Local residents call her grave of Saint Yusha or Iusha, that is, Jesus».
It turns out that this tomb matches ancient descriptions of the tomb of Jesus Christ. We see such a description, for example, in the work “The Walking of Abbot Daniel.” In the modern Russian translation, this text reads like this: “The Crucifixion of the Lord is located on the eastern side on a stone. It was high, a copy above. The stone was round, like a small hill. And in the middle of that stone, at the very top, a well was carved about an elbow deep and less than a span in width in circumference (in the perimeter). The cross of the Lord was erected here. In the ground, under that stone, lies the head of the primordial Adam... And that stone split over Adam’s head... and there is this cleft on that stone to this day... the crucifix of the Lord and that holy stone are surrounded by a wall... and there are two doors (in the wall).
This description of Daniel of the site of Christ’s crucifixion, Fomenko and Nosovsky note, perfectly corresponds to what we see today on Mount Beykos on the outskirts of Istanbul. Namely, a round stone like a small slide with a hole at the very top, in the center. There is a crack in this stone. The very name of the monument is “Jesus’s grave.” There is a wall around this shrine. Even the number of doors in the wall is the same - two. In addition, next to the stone, a high pole was stuck into the ground and tied to it, on top of which today there is a gold (or gilded) disk with an Arabic inscription. This pole may well symbolize the spear mentioned by Daniel, with which, as is known (according to the Gospels), Jesus was struck in the side on the cross.
Indeed, Fomenko and Nosovsky say, at the other end of the “grave” lies a second stone, approximately the same size as the first, and approximately the same shape. But no crack. It lies approximately 10-15 meters from the first stone. No other such stones are visible inside the fenced area (measuring 17 meters by 2 meters). It is difficult to escape the impression, they emphasize, that the second stone marks the place of removal, that is, the place where they laid the body of Jesus after taking him down from the cross.
1.2. The Nativity of Christ and the beginning of our era
1.2.1. Background
It is known that from the beginning of “our era” - or, as it is also called, “new era”, “era from R.H.”, “era of Dionysius” - there was no continuous counting of years. In other words, people did not count years using it for two thousand years, from the first year to the current year, 2007. The first year of the “new era” WAS COMPUTED much later than itself. The purpose of these calculations was to determine the year of the Nativity of Christ - which was therefore UNKNOWN. It is believed that it was first calculated by the Roman monk of Slavic origin Dionysius the Small in the 6th century AD. e. That is, more than 500 years after the event he dates. It is known that Dionysius first calculated the date of the resurrection of Christ. And only then, using church tradition that Christ was crucified at the age of 31, he received the date of Christmas.
The date of the Resurrection of Christ, according to Dionysius, is March 25, 5539 from Adam. The year of the Nativity of Christ, accordingly, is the 5508th from Adam. Both years are given here according to the Russian-Byzantine era from Adam or “from the creation of the world,” which Dionysius is believed to have used. In modern chronology this is 31 AD. e. for the Resurrection and the beginning of 1 year AD. e. for Christmas. This is how the famous era “from the Nativity of Christ” appeared for the FIRST time.
Today this era is familiar to everyone and is widely used as a global civil calendar. But it was not always so. In the West, Dionysius’ calculations raised deep doubts until the 15th century. In Rus' and Byzantium, the “new era” was not recognized even longer - until the 17th century. The following is reported:
“This era (Dionysius) was tested in 607 by Pope Boniface IV, and it is also found in the document of Pope John XII (965-972). But only since the time of Pope Eugene IV (1431) has the era from the “Nativity of Christ” been regularly used in documents of the papal office... Disputes about the date of the birth of Christ continued in Constantinople until the 14th century,” p. 250.
Moreover, today we already know that Dionysius’ calculations actually contained errors of an astronomical nature. The reason for Dionysius' mistakes lies not in his carelessness as a calculator, but in the insufficient development of astronomy in his time. The error in Dionysius’s calculations surfaced already in the 17th–18th centuries. Since then, several attempts have been made to count Dionysius and correct the date of the Nativity of Christ. For example, in the Lutheran Chronograph of the late 17th century we read:
“In what year was Christ the Lord born, about this there are many opinions, and more than fourty (that is, 40! - Author) are counted in understanding”, sheet 102. Let us list some of the attempts to correct the result of Dionysius: - Christ rose again on April 5 33 years old e. at 34 years old, sheet 109; Christ rose again on April 5, 33 AD. e. at 33 years old (the most common opinion); Christ rose again on April 9, 30 AD. e., and was born several years before the beginning of the century. e. (modern view of the Roman Catholic Church, see also).
But why do you get different answers when trying to correct Dionysius? After all, Dionysius the Less received his date of the Resurrection as a date that satisfied certain calendar “Easter conditions”, or more precisely, the “conditions of the Resurrection”. These conditions are well known today (more on them below). Let's perform Dionysius' calculations again, using modern astronomical data. We will get a definite answer. And then we will understand where previous researchers came up with different “solutions” to the SAME FORMAL PROBLEM that do not coincide with each other.
Looking ahead, we immediately note that in fact, as one would expect, none of the above “solutions to the problem of Dionysius” SATISFIES the calendar and astronomical “conditions of the Resurrection” on which the calculations of Dionysius himself were based. Moreover, it turns out that near the beginning of “AD” there are NO DATES AT ALL THAT SATISFY THESE CONDITIONS. In other words, if Dionysius knew modern astronomy, he could not even come close to indicating the year of Christ's birth where he indicated it - at the beginning of our era. e.
Unfortunately, when astronomical science became sufficiently developed to understand this, and this happened only in the 17th–18th centuries, the “new era” and the date of the “Nativity of Christ” were already widespread in the West and canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and then Orthodox Church. In addition - and this, apparently, is the main thing - the date of the Nativity of Christ is closely connected with the Scaligerian chronological scale and a strong shift in this date destroys the entire chronological construction of Scaliger.
Therefore, the researchers who tried to “correct” Dionysius had very little freedom - they “had the right” to only slightly shift the date of the Nativity of Christ. For a few years at most. And then only backwards, so as not to increase the “skew” already existing in the Scaligerian chronology due to the gap of 3–4 years between the date of the birth of Christ and the reigns of Augustus and Herod, p. 244. Therefore, under the pressure of Scaligerian chronology, researchers were forced to discard some of the conditions used by Dionysius in dating, and also resorted to various stretches in order to obtain a date close to the beginning of our era.
Let us recall in this regard that in [CHRON1] A. T. Fomenko expressed the idea that “Dionysius the Small” supposedly of the 6th century is largely a phantom reflection of the famous chronologist of the 17th century Dionysius Petavius (Petavis in translation means “Small”).
Let us also recall that according to our research, set out in the book “Tsar of the Slavs,” Christ was born in the 12th century AD. e., namely in 1151 or 1152 AD. e. However, two hundred years later, in the 14th century, the date of Christmas was apparently already forgotten and had to be calculated. As we will see below, the calculations carried out at that time gave an error of approximately 100 years, placing the date of the Resurrection at 1095 AD. e. instead of the correct year 1185 AD. e. On the basis of exactly what considerations these calculations were carried out and why they gave exactly such (erroneous) results, the reader will understand from the further presentation. For now, let’s just emphasize that it was this date, erroneous by about 100 years, that became part of the church tradition of the 14th–16th centuries. And only later, in the 16th–17th centuries, after new, even more erroneous calculations undertaken by the school of Scaliger, the dating of the Nativity, accepted today, to the beginning of our era was obtained. e. Slyly attributed to the supposedly “ancient” Roman monk Dionysius the Lesser. Under whose name, most likely, Dionysius Petavius, one of the founders of the Scaligerian chronology, was actually partially “encrypted.”
Z Hello, dear visitors of the Orthodox website “Family and Faith”!
Congratulations on the Holy Days (Christmastide)!
TO For festive reading we offer the word of Bishop Alexander (Mileant) about the joyful Gospel event - the Nativity of Christ!
Christmas event
Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
IN in the history of mankind there is no greater and more joyful event than the coming into the world and the incarnation of the Son of God. It is a work of the infinite love of God the Father, Who “ He so loved the world that he gave his Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
The incarnation of the Son of God from the Virgin Mary radically changed the world for the better: it gave people a new way of thinking, ennobled their morals, and directed world events in a new direction. It poured a stream of Divine life into the decrepit human body and thereby brought eternal life to people. For these reasons, the incarnation of the Son of God took a central place among world events and chronology is calculated from it - before and after the Nativity of Christ.
Before the Nativity of Jesus Christ there was a general expectation of the Savior. The Jews expected His coming on the basis of prophecies; The pagans, suffering from unbelief and general debauchery of morals, also eagerly awaited the Transformer of human society. All prophecies regarding the time of the incarnation of the Son of God were fulfilled. Patriarch Jacob predicted that the Savior would come when the scepter departed from Judah (Gen. 49:10). St. Daniel predicted that the Kingdom of the Messiah would come in the seventieth week (490 years) after the commandment to restore Jerusalem was issued, during the period of a powerful pagan kingdom that would be strong as iron (Dan. 9:24-27).
And so it happened. By the end of the predicted period, Judea fell under the rule of the powerful Roman Empire, and the scepter from Judas passed to Herod, an Edomite by birth. The time has come for Christ to come. Since people, having fallen away from God, began to idolize earthly blessings, wealth and glory, the Son of God rejected these earthly idols and deigned to come into the world in the most humble surroundings.
The events of Christmas are described by two evangelists - the apostles Matthew (of the 12) and Luke (of the 70 disciples). Since the Evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, he set out to prove that the Messiah comes from the forefathers Abraham and King David, as predicted by the prophets. Therefore, the Evangelist Matthew begins his narrative of the Nativity of Christ with a genealogy (Matt. 1:1-17).
Knowing that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, the evangelist does not say that Joseph begat Jesus, but says that Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus, called Christ, was born. But why does he give the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary? The fact is that Jews did not have the habit of tracing genealogies through the female line. Their law commanded that a wife must be taken from the same tribe to which the husband belonged, so the evangelist, without departing from custom, cited the genealogy of Joseph, showing that Mary, Joseph’s wife, and, consequently, Jesus, who was born from Her, come from the same the tribe of Judah and the family of David.
Informed by the Archangel Gabriel that She had been chosen to become the Mother of the Messiah, the Blessed Virgin went on a date with Elizabeth, being only the betrothed bride of Joseph. Almost three months have passed since the Angel's gospel. Joseph, not privy to this secret, noticed Her position; her appearance could give rise to the idea of the bride’s infidelity; he could publicly expose Her and subject her to the strict execution established by the law of Moses, but out of his kindness he did not want to resort to such a drastic measure. After much hesitation, he decided to let his bride go secretly, without making any publicity, handing her a letter of divorce.
But an Angel appeared to him in a dream and announced that the bride betrothed to him would give birth to the Holy Spirit and that he would call the Son born by her Jesus (Ieshua), that is, the Savior, since He would save his people from their sins. That's why." ..do not be afraid to accept Mary your wife.” Joseph recognized this dream as a suggestion from above, obeyed it, accepted Mary as his wife, but “ didn't know her" that is, he lived with Her not as husband and wife, but as brother and sister, or, judging by the enormous difference in age, more like father and daughter. Narrating this, the evangelist adds on his own behalf: “And all this happened, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, who says: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a Son, and they will call His name Emmanuel” (Is. 7:14). Name " Emmanuel" means " God is with us." Here Isaiah does not call the one born of the Virgin Emmanuel, but says that that is what people will call Him, i.e. They will say that the Lord Himself came to earth.
Evangelist Luke notes that the time of the Nativity of Christ coincided with the census of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, which was carried out by order of Caesar Augustus, that is, the Roman Emperor Octavian, who received the title of Augustus - “sacred” from the Roman Senate. The edict of the census came out in 746 from the founding of Rome, but in Judea the census began around 750, in the last years of the reign of Herod, called the Great.
Jews traced their genealogies by tribe and clan. This custom was so strong that, having learned about the command of Augustus, they each went to enroll in the city of their clan. Joseph and the Virgin Mary, as you know, came from the family of David, so they had to go to Bethlehem, called the City of David because David was born in it.
Thus, by the Providence of God, the ancient prediction of the prophet Micah was fulfilled that Christ would be born in Bethlehem: “ And you, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, are you small among the thousands [villages] of Judah? From you will come to me one who is to be a ruler in Israel, and whose origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity"(Micah 5:2, Matt. 2:6).
According to Roman law, women, along with men, were subject to a universal census. Therefore, Joseph went to Bethlehem to enroll not alone, but with the Blessed Virgin. An unexpected trip to the native Bethlehem, and moreover, a trip shortly before the birth of the Baby, was supposed to convince Joseph that Caesar’s decree on the census was an instrument in the hands of Providence, directing that the Son of Mary be born exactly where the Messiah-Savior was to be born.
After a tiring journey, Elder Joseph and the Virgin Mary came to Bethlehem, but there was no room for the future Mother of the Savior of the world in the hotel, and She and her companion were forced to stay in a cave, where cattle were driven from pasture in inclement weather. Here, on a winter night, in the most wretched of circumstances, the Savior of the world, Christ, was born.
Having given birth to the Son, the Most Holy Virgin Herself wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger. With these brief words, the evangelist reports that the Mother of God gave birth painlessly. Evangelist's expression " and she gave birth to her firstborn son" gives reason to non-believers to say that the Blessed Virgin had other children besides Jesus the firstborn, since the evangelists mention the “brothers” of Christ (Simon, Josiah, Judas and James). But we must remember that according to the law of Moses (Exodus 13:2), every male child who “opens the womb” was called the firstborn, that is, the firstborn, even if he was also the last. The so-called “brothers” of Jesus in the Gospels were not His own brothers, but only relatives, being the children of the elderly Joseph from his first wife Solomia, as well as the children of Mary of Cleopas, whom the Evangelist John calls “the sister of His Mother.” In any case, they were all much older than Christ and therefore could not possibly have been children of the Virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ was born at night, when everyone in Bethlehem and its environs was immersed in deep sleep. Only the shepherds, who were guarding the flock entrusted to them in the field, did not sleep. An Angel appears to these humble people, toiling and burdened, with the joyful news of the birth of the Savior of the world. The radiant light that surrounded the Angel in the darkness of the night frightened the shepherds. But the Angel immediately reassured them, saying: “ Do not be afraid! I bring you good news of great joy, which will be to all people: for today a Savior has been born in the city of David, who is Christ the Lord.” With these words, the Angel made them understand the true purpose of the Messiah, who came not for the Jews alone, but for all people, for “there will be joy to all people” who will accept Him as Savior.
The angel told the shepherds that they would find the born Christ the Lord in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. But why didn’t the Angel announce the birth of Christ to the Jewish elders, scribes and Pharisees and call them to worship the Divine Child? Yes, because these “blind leaders of the blind” ceased to understand the true meaning of the prophecies of the Messiah and, out of exceptional Jewish pride, imagined that the Deliverer they had promised would appear in the full splendor of a majestic conquering king and conquer the whole world. The humble preacher of peace and love for enemies was unacceptable to them.
The shepherds had no doubt that an Angel had been sent to them from God, and therefore they were honored to hear the solemn heavenly hymn: “ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!”(Luke 2:14). The angels praise God, who sent the Savior to people, for from this time on, peace of conscience is restored and the enmity between Heaven and earth that arose as a result of sin is eliminated.
The angels left, and the shepherds hastily went to Bethlehem and found the Child lying in a manger, and they were the first to worship Him. They told Mary and Joseph about the event that led them to the cradle of Christ, they told others about the same thing, and everyone who heard their story was surprised. " But Mary kept all these words, writing them in her heart, " those. She remembered everything she heard. Evangelist Luke, who describes the gospel of the Archangel Gabriel, the birth of Christ (Luke 2 chapters) and other events related to the Virgin Mary, obviously wrote from Her words.
On the eighth day, the Child was circumcised, as prescribed by the law of Moses. Probably, soon after Christmas, the Holy Family moved from the cave to the house, since most of the newcomers to Bethlehem after the recording had no need to stay there.
January 7 – Christmas. This is the day of the beginning of a new era. On this day, the night festive Liturgy is served in all churches of the Orthodox Church. Christmastide begins with the Christmas holiday - holy days - two weeks before Epiphany Eve.
New era
It got very cold that night. Nights in this area are generally cool, but that night was especially chilly. Because of the cold, even the night seemed blue-black, and this made the stars twinkle brighter in the dark sky.
The lucky ones, whose houses were heated in advance and all the cracks were prudently filled with rags, wrapped themselves up warmly and, getting ready to go to bed, exchanged happy words about how, for sure, theirs would be warmer than their neighbors.
What kind of uninvited guest? Who knocks on the door in such darkness? Who can't sleep?
And the nights were indeed restless - and all because of this census. So it was necessary to conduct a population census. Now everyone goes to Bethlehem, everyone who was born here, and they need a place to stay for the night. It’s good if someone is richer, but they’re asking for nothing.
– Do you have anything to pay with?
- No, we are poor people, but my wife is about to give birth, and we really need a place to stay for the night! We came from afar, She is tired and can’t walk anymore!
…. Well, there’s no money, and my wife has to give birth, well, it won’t be a hassle.
- Sorry, there are no places!
And another door slammed.
Should I try again? Shouldn't we spend the night on the street? What to do next?
-A place in the stable?
After all, She has to give birth. After all, not just a baby should come into the world. After all, the King of Kings, the savior of the world, will come!
Old Joseph knew who his wife would give birth to. Maria was given to him as a wife as a very young girl - the priests did not know what to do with a girl who had vowed to devote her whole life to God and chose him, already an old man, to be her husband. And so, after some time it turns out that his pure bride is pregnant. What about the vow of chastity? And they will find out what will happen to her - she will be stoned to death! She is pregnant, but not yet married... And he decides to secretly let her go. Then at least they won’t kill her...
But that night he suddenly woke up. It was not a dream, it was a vision - an Angel of God appeared to him. He appeared before him and said that there was no sin on Mary. The one she carries under her heart is not the fruit of male lust, but the fruit of the Covenant, the Son of the Holy Spirit, the Savior of the world. The Messiah, whom everyone had been waiting for for hundreds of years.
And long weeks of waiting began, and now the one who will come to save the world is very close. To save us all from death, from sin, to give hope for salvation.
It was winter.
The wind was blowing from the steppe.
And it was cold for the Baby in the den
On the hillside.
B. Pasternak
And there was not even the tiniest place for Him in any house. The King and Savior of the world is born, and where? In a dirty barn, where only animals warm the air with their warmth.
The breath of the ox warmed him.
Pets
We stood in a cave
A warm haze floated over the manger.
We have long lost the habit of saying “before our era”, “in the new era”, introduced into the Russian language after the revolution to replace “before the Nativity of Christ” and “after the Nativity of Christ”, for example, in English the eras are still designated as BC (Before Christ - before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini lat. - year of the Lord)
Meeting the Tsar
Christ was born in the city of Bethlehem during the days of the national census in the Roman Empire, which at that time also included Judea.
“I see (I see) a strange and glorious sacrament,” he sings, “Heaven is a den; Throne of Cherubim - Virgo; The manger is a container, and in them the incontainable Christ God will recline” (irmos of the 9th song of the canon).
According to legend, the birth of the Infant of God was painless, so the Most Holy Virgin Herself, without outside help, swaddled the Infant and laid Him in a manger.
But in the midst of midnight silence, when all of humanity was enveloped in the deepest sleep, the news of the Nativity of the Savior of the world was heard by the shepherds. They were guarding the flock when an Angel appeared to them and said: “Do not be afraid: I bring you good news of great joy, today a Savior has been born to you, Christ the Lord.”
The shepherds, apparently pious people, immediately hurried to where the Angel showed them, and were the first to receive the honor of worshiping the Infant Christ. They spread everywhere, wherever they looked, about the appearance of Angels to them and about the heavenly praise they heard, and everyone who heard them marveled. The Most Holy Virgin Mary, filled with a feeling of deep humility, remembered all this, “composing it in Her heart.”
Thus, the poor simple shepherds were the first to see Christ.
The frosty night was like a fairy tale,
And someone from a snowy ridge
All the time he was invisibly part of their ranks.
The dogs wandered, looking around cautiously,
And they huddled close to the shepherd and waited for trouble.
Along the same road through the same area
Several angels walked in the midst of the crowd.
Their incorporeality made them invisible,
But the step left a footprint.
A crowd of people was crowding around the stone.
It was getting light. Cedar trunks appeared.
-Who are you? – asked Maria.
– We are a shepherd’s tribe and ambassadors of heaven,
We have come to praise you both.
- We can’t do it all together. Wait at the entrance.
Calculation from the Nativity of Christ
The accepted chronology “from the Nativity of Christ” was introduced in the 6th century by the Roman monk Dionysius, called the Small. Dionysius based his calculations on the calculation that the Lord Jesus Christ was born in the year 754 from the founding of Rome, but, as more thorough research showed, his calculation turned out to be erroneous: Dionysius indicated the year at least five years later than the actual one. However, this Dionysian era, intended at the beginning only for church use, from the 10th century became widespread in Christian countries and was accepted in civil chronology, although it is recognized as erroneous by all chronologists: the generally accepted date of Christmas is the 749th year from the founding of Rome.
Why the Magi?
The next to come to the newborn Christ were the wise men from the East. In their person, the entire pagan world bowed its knees before the true Savior of the world.
Today it is often said that the Orthodox faith accepts astrology, and at the same time they refer to the fact that the Magi were among the first to come to the newborn Savior. However, the church testifies to the impossibility of Orthodox astrology: the Magi brought all pagan wisdom to the feet of Christ, symbolically showing the insignificance of their knowledge before the greatness of the God-man.
The Gospel wise men determined by the stars that the King of the Jews was born, but, having come to Jerusalem, they were forced to turn to the scribes and Pharisees to find out in which city exactly He was born? “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east and came to worship him.” (Matt. 2.2).
These words frightened Herod. Reigned at that time, because he had no legal right to the throne. Herod was afraid of his opponent, but what was it worth to destroy him? While the baby was still so defenseless: Herod made the Magi promise to point him to the newborn King of Kings. They came to Bethlehem and there “fallen, bowed down” Newborn Christ. “Having opened your treasures”, Magi “They brought Him gifts: gold, as to a King, frankincense, as to God, and myrrh, as to a man who had tasted death.”.
It was getting light. Dawn is like specks of ash,
The last stars were swept from the sky.
And only the Magi from the countless rabble
Mary let him into the hole in the rock.
He slept, all shining, in an oak manger,
Like a ray of moonlight in the hollow of a hollow.
They replaced his sheepskin coat
Donkey lips and ox nostrils.
We stood in the shadows, as if in the darkness of a stable,
They whispered, barely finding words.
Suddenly someone in the dark, a little to the left
He pushed the sorcerer away from the manger with his hand,
And he looked back: from the threshold to the Virgin,
The Christmas star looked on like a guest.
Having received a revelation in a dream not to return to Herod, who planned to kill the Infant God, the Magi took a different route, that is, not through Jerusalem, and went to their own country, probably south of Bethlehem. and then Herod ordered to kill all the babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding area. An angel appeared to Joseph again and ordered him to flee with Mary and the Child to Egypt to avoid certain death.
What is Christmas for?
Christ came into the world in order to heal the sinful, fallen nature of man from within. As the famous theologian of the 20th century, Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, writes, “God gives His Son - yes, to earthly life, but also to death! To death, which is alien to Him to everyone, with which He has nothing in common, because death is the fruit of our alienation from God, death is the fruit of sin, the deadness of the soul, which entails the dying of the body. The incarnate God, the God-man Lord Jesus Christ, is already immortal at His birth: and He accepts mortality, wanting in everything to be identified with us, people, to be at one with us, without being separated from the love of God, or from unity with Him, in order to live our life, but a purified life, transparent to everything bright, and die our sinful death. Yes! He dies our death, not His own, because how can Eternal Life die?.. But He communes with us and dies.”
Christ became a man not only to teach us the true path or to show us a good example. He became a man so that we unite with yourself, to associate our weak, sick human nature with His Divinity.
Holiday
At Christmas, a night Liturgy is served in all churches of the Orthodox Church, distinguishing this day from the other days of the year.
The chants of the Nativity of Christ service are especially solemn and melodious. In the evening on the day of the Feast, festive vespers are served. Temples are always decorated for Christmas in a special way: in many churches, Christmas trees are decorated and Nativity scenes are installed.
At Christmas, the 40-day fast ends and the joyful time of Christmastide begins. The time when there is no fasting, the time that Orthodox Christians try to spend holyly, is the result of all fasting. For a long time in Rus', these days especially many acts of mercy were performed, they helped the poor, sick, lonely, this is also a time of folk festivities, fun and joy about the holiday of Christmas.
It is well known that from the beginning of “our era” (“new era”) there was no continuous counting of years - from the first year to the current year, 1990. The first year of the “new era” was calculated much later as the year of the birth of Christ. It is believed that this year was first calculated by the Roman monk Dionysius the Small in the 6th century AD. e., i.e. more than 500 years after the event he dates. At the same time, Dionysius first calculated the date of the resurrection of Christ, and then used the church tradition that Christ was crucified at the age of 31. The date of the Resurrection according to Dionysius is March 25, 5539 from Adam, and the year of the Nativity of Christ, therefore, is 5508 from Adam (according to the Byzantine era).
Dionysius's calculations raised doubts in the West until the 15th century, and were never recognized as canonical in Byzantium:
“This era (Dionysius) was tested in 607 by Pope Boniface IV, it is also found in the document of Pope John XII (965-972). But only since the time of Pope Eugene IV (1431) is the era from the “Nativity of Christ” regularly used in documents of the papal office... Disputes about the date of birth of Christ continued in Constantinople until the 14th century.” , With. 250.
Moreover, today we know that Dionysius' calculations are in fact incorrect (due to the insufficient development of astronomy at that time). Their fallacy became known already in the 16th-17th centuries, and since then several attempts have been made to count for Dionysius and correct the dates of the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ. For example, in a chronograph from the late 17th century we read:
“In what year was Christ the Lord born? There are many opinions about this, and more than fourty (i.e., 40! - Author) are counted in terms of understanding,” l. 102.
Let us list some of the attempts to “correct Dionysius”:
– Christ rose again on April 5, 33 AD. e. at 33 years old (the most widespread opinion until recently; arose in the 19th or 20th century);
– Christ rose again on April 9, 30 AD. e., and was born several years BC. e. (modern view of the Roman Catholic Church, see also).
But why do we get different answers when trying to correct Dionysius’ calculations? After all, Dionysius received his date of the Resurrection as a date that satisfied certain calendar “Easter conditions”, or more precisely, the “conditions of the Resurrection”. These conditions are well known today (more on them below). Let us perform Dionysius’ calculations again, using modern astronomical data, and we will obtain an unambiguous answer. In particular, we will understand where the different answers (solutions) from previous researchers came from.
The fact is that none of the above solutions satisfy the “conditions of the Resurrection” of Dionysius. Moreover, it turns out that near the beginning of “AD” there are no dates at all that satisfy these conditions. In other words, if Dionysius knew modern astronomy, he could not even come close to indicating the year of Christ’s birth where he indicated it - at the beginning of our era. e. Unfortunately, when astronomical data became sufficient to understand this (and this happened only in the 17th century), the “new era” and the date of the “Nativity of Christ” were already widespread in the West and canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and then by the Orthodox Church church. In addition (and this, apparently, is the main thing), the date of the Nativity of Christ is closely connected with the Scaligerian chronological scale and a strong shift in this date destroys the entire chronological construction of Scaliger (in other words, “contradicts the traditional chronology accepted today”).
Therefore, researchers who tried to “correct” Dionysius had very little freedom - they could slightly shift the date of the Nativity of Christ by at most a few years. And then only backwards, so as not to increase the “skew” already existing in the Scaligerian chronology of 3...4 years between the date of the birth of Christ and the reigns of Augustus and Herod, p. 244. Therefore, under the pressure of traditional Scaligerian chronology, researchers were forced to discard some of the conditions used by Dionysius in dating, and also resort to various stretches in order to obtain a date close to the beginning of our era.
2.2. Calendar “Conditions of the Resurrection”
Church tradition, in agreement with the Gospels, states that Christ was resurrected on March 25, Sunday the day after the Jewish Passover, which, therefore, fell this time on March 24 (Saturday). It was these “Easter conditions,” which we will call “conditions of the Resurrection,” that Dionysius had in mind when he carried out his calculations of the date of the Resurrection of Christ, and then the Nativity of Christ.
The fact that Christ was resurrected the day after the Jewish Passover is clearly stated in the Gospel of John. This is also confirmed by church tradition and the entire medieval tradition.
The fact that Christ was resurrected on March 25 is known from church tradition. We have seen that the calculations of Dionysius the Less are based on the assumption that the resurrection of Christ was precisely on March 25.
It is known that all-Eastern church writers unanimously asserted that Christ was resurrected on March 25. See, for example,.
A complete set of calendar conditions accompanying, according to stable church tradition, the resurrection of Christ can be found in the “Collection of Patristic Rules” by Matthew Blastar (XIV century):
“For the Lord suffered for our salvation in 5539, when the circle of the sun was 23, the circle of the moon was 10, and the Jews had the Passover on Saturday (as the evangelists write) March 24. On the Sunday following this Saturday, March 25... Christ was resurrected. The legal Passover (Jewish) is celebrated at the equinox on the 14th moon (i.e., on the full moon) - from March 21 to April 18 - our Passover is celebrated on the following Sunday.” , sheet 185.
Church Slavonic text:
“For the Lord saved the passion of the five thousandth and five hundredth and 39 present year, 23 for the sun passes in circles, 10 the moon, and for the Jews of the Jews had the Passover on the last day of the week (Saturday), as the Evangelist decided to be great, calling that day the Sabbath, March 24; in the coming week (on Sunday), as the sun was cut off considerably, and in the twenty and fifth consecutive year (i.e., March 25), the mental sun Christ rose from the tomb. Since then, the lawful Passover (Jewish Passover) is celebrated on the 14th moon after the equinox, from the twentieth and first of March to the eighteenth day of April: it is our custom to fall on it on a week (on Sunday).” , leaf. 185.
The year of the passion of Christ given by Matthew Blastar (5539 from Adam) is exactly the year calculated by Dionysius. (Subtracting 31 years from it - the age of Christ - Dionysius received the beginning of his era - AD: 5508 from Adam). In addition, Matthew Blastar gives the following calendar instructions for the year of Christ's resurrection:
1) circle to the sun 23,
2) circle of the moon 10,
3) the day before, March 24, there was the Jewish Passover, celebrated on the day of the 14th moon (i.e., on the full moon),
4) the Jewish Passover was on Saturday, and Christ rose on Sunday.
Question: is it possible to reconstruct the year (date) of the Resurrection using these data? Answer: yes.
We will call the set of these 4 points the calendar “conditions of the Resurrection.”
2.3. Dating of the Resurrection of Christ according to the full set of “conditions of the Resurrection”
We carried out computer calculations for each year from 100 BC. e. before 1700 AD e. The day of the spring full moon (14th moon or Jewish Easter) was calculated using Gauss's formulas, and Christian Easter, the circle of the sun and the circle of the moon - about Paschal. Just like Dionysius (and Matthew Blastar), we assumed that the day of the Resurrection was Easter day according to Paschal.
Statement 3.
The calendar “conditions of the Resurrection” 1-4, associated by stable church tradition of the 14th century with the date of the passion and resurrection of Christ, were fulfilled only once:
in 1095 AD e.
It should be emphasized that the very fact of the existence of such a solution is absolutely non-trivial. If these conditions were the fruit of pure fantasy, then, most likely, we would not have found a single exact solution in the historical era (it can be shown that an arbitrarily taken set of conditions of this type, as a rule, has no solutions in the historical era and only in In some cases there is only one solution).
Consequence.
The Nativity of Christ thus dates back to approximately 1064 AD. e. - 31 years before 1095 AD. e.
Note 1.
Date 1095 AD e. ideally corresponds to the new non-Scaligerian chronology (“statistical chronology”), constructed in the works of A. T. Fomenko [nx-1]. Comparing it with the dating of the 1st Ecumenical Council (see above), we see that it turns out that the 1st Ecumenical Council took place before the incarnation of Christ.
Does this contradict church tradition? It turns out that this question is not at all simple. We did not find any obvious contradictions.
This certainly contradicts only the view of the history of the church, which was formed no earlier than the 14th-15th centuries, but not church tradition.
Note 2.
The above passage from Matthew Blastar with the date of the resurrection of Christ and the “conditions of the Resurrection” shows that ancient dates contained in medieval sources (and thanks to the school of Scaliger, often mechanically copied onto the pages of our textbooks) should be treated with extreme caution.
Many of these dates are the results of calculations based on still insufficiently developed science (including astronomical science) and may contain errors for many years.
It is precisely such huge errors, and not inaccuracies of several years, that arise in calendar calculations based on inaccurate medieval astronomy. For example, in the above passage from Matthew Blastar, the date is given: 5539 from Adam and its calendar characteristics (Easter conditions - conditions of the Resurrection).
The medieval chronologist (Dionysius?) calculated this date from a set of “conditions of the Resurrection” in accordance with the level of knowledge of this chronologist. Today, when we carry out precise calculations again, we see that this date is wrong by at least 1000 (thousand) years!
We were lucky: in this case, the ancient texts preserved for us the conditions (conditions of the Resurrection) that allow us to unambiguously restore the sought-after date. In any other case, when such conditions (data) are lost, it is no longer possible to verify the validity of the ancient date. But it is also impossible to assume that it is (at least approximately) accurate without additional research. All this suggests that the Scaligerian version of chronology accepted today, based on a very uncritical use of sources, requires careful verification by the methods of modern science. This work was done in [nx-1], where an “optimal statistical chronology” of the ancient and medieval world was proposed. This study confirms the conclusions of A. T. Fomenko.
2.4. Dating of the Resurrection of Christ according to an abbreviated set of “Conditions of the Resurrection”
Let's take a closer look at the “conditions of the Resurrection” 1-4. They are not equal. Conditions 3 and 4 are known from many sources and constitute a stable church tradition (for links, see, for example, in). Conditions 1 and 2 are very specific calendar guidelines. What happens if you try to satisfy only two conditions 3 and 4? Let us present the result of the computer calculation.
Statement 4.
“Conditions of the Resurrection” 3 and 4 for the period of time from 100 BC. e. before 1700 AD e. were carried out only in the following years:
1) -42 year (BC);
2) 53 AD e.;
3) 137 AD e.;
4) 479 AD e.;
5) 574 AD e.;
6) 658 AD e.;
7) 753 AD e.;
8) 848 AD e.;
9) 1095 AD e. (satisfies the full set of conditions 1-4);
10) 1190 AD e.
It is easy to see that here too there is not a single solution that would satisfy the chronologists of the Scaligerian school. So, let's conclude.
The widespread church tradition, clearly reflected in the Gospel of John and in the writings of many church writers, cannot be reconciled with the date of the birth of Christ around the beginning of our era. e.
In order to achieve such agreement, it is necessary to shift the date of the birth of Christ at least 70 years ago or at least 20 years forward. If we add here also conditions 1-2, then the solution becomes unambiguous and gives the 11th century AD. e.
2.5. Could Dionysius the Small have lived in the 6th century AD? e.?
Today it is believed that Dionysius the Small lived in the 6th century AD. e. and carried out my calculations as follows:
Dionysius allegedly carried out all these reasonings and calculations while working with Paschal. Having discovered that in the almost contemporary year 563 (279 according to the era of Diocletian) the “conditions of the Resurrection” were fulfilled, he postponed 532 years ago (i.e., postponed the value of the Great Indiction, when shifted by which the Paschal is completely repeated) and received the date of the Resurrection of Christ . At the same time, he did not know that the Jewish Passover (14th moon) cannot be shifted by 532 years (due to the inaccuracy of the Metonic cycle), and as a result, Dionysius was mistaken:
“Dionysius failed, although he did not know it. After all, if he sincerely believed that the First Easter was on March 25, 31 AD. e., then he was grossly mistaken in extrapolating the inaccurate Metonic cycle back by 28 circles (i.e., 532 years 28 hours 19 = 532). In fact, the 15th of Nissan - the Jewish Passover - in 31 was not on Saturday, March 24, ... but on Tuesday, March 27! " , With. 243.
This is a modern reconstruction of the actions of Dionysius the Less in the 6th century. Everything would be fine in her, but she assumes that in the year 563 AD, close to Dionysius. e. The 14th moon (Jewish Passover) actually fell on March 24th. Let Dionysius not know about the inaccuracy of the Metonic cycle and made a mistake, shifting the Jewish Passover from 563 to the same date in March in 31 AD. e. But when the Jewish Passover actually happened in the almost contemporary year 563, he, of course, should have known! To do this, it was enough for him to apply the Metonic cycle only 30-40 years in advance, and the inaccuracy of the Metonic cycle does not affect such a short period of time. But the most striking thing is that in 563, the Jewish Passover (14th moon) did not fall on March 24, but on Sunday March 25, i.e., it coincided with the Christian Easter, determined by Paschal. Working specifically with the calendar situation of the year 563 almost contemporary to him and basing the calculation of the era from the “Nativity of Christ” on this situation, Dionysius could not help but see that:
Firstly, the calendar situation in 563 does not correspond to the gospel description, and
Secondly, the coincidence of Jewish and Christian Easter in 563 contradicts the essence of the definition of Christian Easter (which forms the basis of Easter; see above).
Therefore, it seems completely incredible to us that calculations of the date of the resurrection and birth of Christ were carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of 563. And besides, we have already shown that the Paschalia itself, which Dionysius used, was compiled no earlier than the 8th century and was canonized only at the end of the 9th century.
Consequently, the calculations of Dionysius the Less (or those attributed to him) were carried out no earlier than the 10th century AD. e. (and therefore “Dionysius the Small” himself most likely could not have lived earlier than the 10th century AD).
Hypothesis.
We saw (see above) that in the section of the “Patristic Rules” of Matthew Blastar dedicated to Easter (chapter 7 of the 80th composition), it is said that the equinox “currently” falls on March 18th. In fact, the spring equinox during the time of Vlastar (i.e. in the 14th century) fell on March 12th. And on March 18 it fell in the 6th century.
This means that by dating Vlastar’s text according to the vernal equinox, we automatically get the 6th century! Apparently, the same late medieval text was included both in the “Rules” of Matthew Blastar and in the work of Dionysius the Less (in the Latin version). Perhaps this is a text written by Vlastar himself or one of his immediate predecessors in the 13th-14th centuries. It contains, as we have seen, the dating of the resurrection of Christ, but there is not a word about the date of the Nativity of Christ. It was probably the text of Vlastar that was soon used by “Dionysius the Lesser,” who subtracted 31 years from the date of the resurrection of Christ, thus obtaining the date of the “Nativity of Christ” and introducing his new era. If this happened in the 14th century, then it is not surprising that the systematic use of this era began only in the 15th century (since 1431) in the West. Subsequently (apparently in the 17th century), the Latin text of Dionysius was dated by the equinox to the 6th century and the above reconstruction of his calculations appeared. The very name “Dionysius the Small” (Maly-Exiguus, lat.) is, according to the hypothesis expressed in [nx-1], simply the name of the 17th century chronologist Dionysius Petavius (Petavius-Maly), who completed the construction of the Scaliger chronology.
2.6. Discussion
This date was restored by us according to the surviving traces of the Byzantine church tradition of the 13th-14th centuries and, therefore, should be considered primarily as part of this tradition.
March 25, 1095 AD e. was the day of the so-called “Kyriopascha” (i.e. “royal Easter”, “Easter of the high priest”) - Easter, which coincided with the Annunciation (March 25). Kyriopascha is a rather rare event. In church tradition it is associated with the coming of Christ. We have seen that the calculations of “Dionysius the Less” were, in essence, a search for a suitable kyriopascha. Approximately imagining the time of Christ’s resurrection, he took Kyriopascha, which fell at that time, and took it as the date of the Resurrection.
It is possible that the date March 25, 1095, accepted by the chroniclers of the 13th-14th centuries as the date of the resurrection of Christ, was based on similar considerations - that is, this date was chosen by them as the appropriate time for Kyriopaskha (according to their ideas about chronology).
Therefore, strictly speaking, the conclusion that we can draw from all that has been said is the following.
According to the Byzantine chroniclers of the 13th-14th centuries, the resurrection of Christ took place at the end of the 11th century, and Christmas - in the middle of the 11th century.
Comment. According to the Gospels and church tradition, in the year of the Nativity of Christ, a new star flashed in the east, and 31 years later, in the year of the Resurrection, a total solar eclipse occurred.
(Church sources clearly speak specifically about a solar eclipse in connection with the resurrection of Christ, and do not always refer it to Good Friday. Note that a solar eclipse in a given area, and even more so a total solar eclipse, is an extremely rare event. The fact is that solar eclipses, although they occur every year, are visible only in the region of a narrow strip of the trajectory of the lunar shadow on Earth - in contrast to lunar eclipses, which are visible immediately from half of the globe. Biblical science of the 18th-19th centuries, without, naturally, discovering the gospel sun. eclipses “where necessary” - in Palestine at the beginning of our era - changed it into a lunar eclipse. This, however, still did not help - they also did not find an exactly suitable lunar eclipse. However, since then it has become a common belief that in the Gospels. It is not a solar eclipse, but a lunar eclipse that is described. We will consider the initial point of view reflected in the primary sources, according to which the eclipse was solar.)
It turns out that such a pair of rare astronomical events - the outbreak of a new star and, 31 years later, a total solar eclipse in the Mediterranean - really happened, but not in the first, but in the 11th century AD. e.! This is the famous nova in 1054 and the total solar eclipse of February 16, 1086 (Monday).
The shadow of this eclipse passed through Italy and Byzantium.
We will not go into historical and theological disputes, since our task here is only to study the old church (Byzantine) tradition in order to restore the dates associated with this tradition. Let us note that there is a clearly expressed traditional church medieval view.
(Helmsman, Chrysostom, Theophylact), according to which the Jewish Passover-full moon in the year of Christ’s crucifixion was precisely on Saturday, as stated in the Gospel of John, and Christ deliberately ordered the Paschal lamb to be prepared ahead of schedule - on Thursday. This violation of timing was especially emphasized by Eastern theologians, since it is indirectly reflected in the worship of the Orthodox Church, which, when celebrating the liturgy, uses leavened (yeast) bread rather than unleavened bread - since, according to church tradition, at the Last Supper, which took place on Thursday even before Passover, there were no unleavened bread (they were supposed to be eaten starting from the Passover evening). The same view is expressed by Matthew Blastar in his canonical “Collection of Patristic Rules,” which we used in dating.
2.9. Why do calendar issues seem so “dark” today?
A modern reader, even if he has the necessary special knowledge to understand calendar issues, when reading books on history, as a rule, misses all the calendar and chronological details “out of ear.” And in fact, these details seem so dark and confusing that the reader simply regrets the time to sort them out (especially since he does not see any benefit in it).
Meanwhile, the point is not in the complexity of calendar issues in themselves. They're not that complicated. The deliberate confusion of calendar-chronological discussions is often a direct consequence of hidden errors in the chronology accepted today. This confusion is a kind of “covering up tracks” in order to prevent the reader from understanding what, in the opinion of the author-historian, he “shouldn’t” understand. Let's give a few examples.
Let's take, say, the textbook for students “Introduction to Special Historical Disciplines” (Moscow Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1990), approved by the USSR State Committee for Public Education as a teaching aid for students of higher educational institutions studying in the specialty “History”. In this textbook, among other sections (genealogy, heraldry, numismatics, etc.), chronology is in fifth place. We cannot list here all the errors, inaccuracies and typos made in this section - there are too many of them. Here we present only the “record result”: 4 fundamental errors in one sentence.
Describing the Gregorian calendar reform, the author writes:
“Corresponding changes were also made to the calculations of Easter, which was lagging behind by the end of the 16th century. from the vernal equinox, which is the starting point for determining the timing of Easter, by 3-4 for” (page 179). But:
1) The formal reason for the Gregorian reform was that by the 16th century Easter “laged behind” (that is, fell later) from the first spring full moon, and not from the vernal equinox.
2) The starting point for Easter in Paschal is not the spring equinox, but the (calendar) first spring full moon.
3) The very indication of the “size of the lag” between Easter and the first spring full moon (and even more so from the spring equinox) does not make sense, since the time interval between these two events is not constant (it is different in different years). In fact, this refers to the lag of the calendar Easter full moons (which are the starting points for Easter) from the true astronomical full moons in the 16th century. However:
4) The lag of Easter full moons from the true ones in the 16th century was not 3-4, but 1-3 days. This can be seen from the table below comparing the dates of Easter and true spring full moons in the 19-year cycle (“circle of the Moon”) at the time of the Gregorian reform:
As for the lag between (the earliest) Easter and the vernal equinox, which the author formally speaks of (and which is not relevant to the essence of the issue at all), in the 16th century it was also not 3-4, but 10 days.
One will inevitably feel sorry for the history students who study from such textbooks.
Even in those books on chronology that are generally written in good faith, one can encounter deliberate concealment of “inconvenient” information from the reader. So, for example, in the book by I. A. Klimishin “Calendar and Chronology” (M. Nauka, 1975) on page 213, the quote from Matthew Vlastar about the rules for determining Easter is cut off immediately before Vlastar gives an important chronological indication - the explicit date of establishment Easter "nineteen days" - Metonic cycle: 6233-6251. “from the existence of the world,” i.e. 725-743. n. e. (VIII century!). Elsewhere in the same book, on page 244, I. A. Klimishin writes: “Somewhat later, the Greek historian John Malala (491-578) attributed the “Nativity of Christ” to the year (Ol. 193.3), 752 from the “foundation Rome"; 42nd August..."
John Malala actually gives in his Chronicle the year of Christ’s birth: 6000 “from Adam,” i.e. 492 AD. e. (see the publication by O. V. Tvorogov of the text of the “Sofia Chronograph” in volume 37 of the “Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature”). Why does I. A. Klimishin give this date using the “Olympiads” calculation, which is clearly incomprehensible in this context? Moreover, without any instructions on how to use it, which makes it impossible for the circle of readers to whom the book is addressed to perceive this date. This is a vivid example of blatant concealment of “inconvenient information.”