Wladyslaw Polakowski

THEORETICALLY PROBABLE VERSIONS OF JESUS CHRIST RESURRECTION DATING. THE MATHEMATICALLY MOST FULL PROBLEM SOLUTION.

THE PURPOSE OF AUTHOR BY THIS WORK WRITING
THE HISTORY OF ISSUE AND THE LITTLE IT CALENDAR ANALYSIS
AD: ANNO DIONYSIS SIVE ANNO DIOCLETIANO?
THE MISTAKES OF DIONYSIS EXIGUUS IN FULL MOON DATES CALCULATIONS AND COULD THE FIGURE 13 MAKE THE INFLUENCE ON THIS CALCULATIONS
JESUS CHRIST BIRTH AND RESURRECTION ACCORDING DIFFERENT SOURCES AND THE FORMAL SOLUTION OF THE RESURRECTION DATING PROBLEM ON THE BASE OF CALENDAR INFORMATION ABOUT HIM IN SOURCES ONLY
TABLE 1  THE FIRST MARCH FULL MOON DATES. THEORETICALLY PROBABLE CHRIST RESURRECTION
THE YEAR OF JESUS CHRIST BIRTH EFFORT TO CALCULATE OF PROBABLE DATE OF JESUS CHRIST RESSURECTION WITH THE ACCOUNTING OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE MISSING OF THREE DAYS DURING THE NICEA CATHEDRAL
TABLE 2.THE FIRST MARCH FULL MOON DATES. THEORETICAL PROBABLE CHRIST RESURRECTION DATES WHICH COULD BE HELD WITH THE ACCOUNT OF THREE DAYS MISSING DURING NICEA CATHEDRAL ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF THE JULIAN CALENDAR REFORM ON THE OUR CALCULATIONS
WORK BY G.V.NOSOVSKI CHRIST BIRTH AND BEGINNING OF COMMON ERA
LITERATURE

This is the third, almost the final version of work. It was wrote with the account of the numerous questions and notes said after reading by many readers of the first two its versions. You can also be familiar with the first one clicking here. In each mentioned dates years BC are given in astronomical not historical way of scoring. For obtaining historical years it's necessary to subscribe 1 from astronomical year. For example mentioned in table astronomical year -23 (23BC) corresponds to historical year -24 (24BC).

THE PURPOSE OF AUTHOR BY THIS WORK WRITING

There is two ways to explore the issue of the Jesus Christ Birth and/or Resurrection from the viewpoint of the source (if have attitude to him as to real historical person or to the person for description of whose life had used even partially description of life of some real person): exploring canonical and noncanonical sources.

The books of New and Old Testament are sources canonized by the church. The rest of sourceswhere the Jesus Christ is mentioned as personage and this source isn’t recognized by church as canonized so it is noncanonized or noncanonical.

As for exploring of Jesus Christ birth and resurrection by the canonical sources the explorer his exploration will be finished comparable quickly. The explorer will be faced on the mentioning of the Herodus, King of Iudea, and/or roman emperor Tiberius and after this he will be facing with the problem of finding out of years of their life. And in this place explorer will be faced with new merely problem of absence of nonbreakable global chronicles which are telling on nonbreaking way with about the whole history of humanity. The available chronicles are telling about the local events only. They are dating all events in the best situation in the years of governing of someone emperor, council, other governor, i.e. in relative chronology. So to find going by this way the magnitude of the time interval from the governing of Herodus of Tiberius to our days will not be easy problem.

And to addition will be finding the other fact. That among different governors and other state or church figures of different countries several of them only as the recognized points of the timescoring are appearing mire often then other. Such are Alexander, Panodor or Diocletianus.

And the most often is mentioned the person of halflegendary Jesus Christ, from the whose birth the majority countries already till XVI century begun to date their events.

So we have the purpose of our work: to show on the base of information taken from both canonical and nocanonical sources the whole theoretically probable spectrum of Jesus Christ birth and resurrection date. Such information may have character chronological or astronomical. Among the astronomical there are so calendarian only, i.e. in which the certain calendar date is mentioning.

What about astronomical information, it is is diversiform and is difficult enough from the point of view of abundance of treatments and interpretations of the canonical texts (supernew stars, comet, planet, star constellations etc.). We in this article shall consider the calendar part of a problem only.

As to the information of calendar character, she in some noncanonical sources nevertheless was kept and about her will be recited in appropriate section explicitly

It would be desirable to tell about certain advantages of the calendar information before any other information. The julian calendar from the moment of its proclamation by Julian Caesar if was revised, it was legiblly captured. Thus there is no problem on a docking of the separate chronicles, and we can say uniquely: the information calendar more reliably than information chronological.

Let's cause canonical positions of church on the given problem. The modern divinity invokes for, that at analysis of the given problem the canonical sources were used only. The orthodox church invokes to fall into to Jesus to the Christ as to the godhood, and the latin church allows to discuss similar subjects only to church elite.

The author of the given article does not discuss in the article doctrinal aspects of the given subject.

THE HISTORY OF ISSUE AND THE LITTLE IT’S CALENDAR ANALYSIS (not reading this chapter to the main work's part)

Is known the first historian precisely chronologer who began score year from Christmas birth was the roman monk Dionysis Exiguus  borning in VI century CE. His works as believed (8) was discovered and popularized by English historian Beda Venerabilis in VII century CE. By the time more and more historians was trying to date one or another dates of events from the Jesus Christ birth. By the time the more and more countries were accepted the Christ era as the main era of dating. The mass popularity this era received due to celebration of Jesus Christ Jubileum in 1300 by pope Bonifacy VIII. At this time was appeared many historians and chrologers which wrote the version of the history of humanity dating all events from the Christ Birth.

What about eastern countries, it's well known that Bizantia have not accepting the Christ era for a long time. Disputes in Constantinopol about it were till to XIV-th century (as to (1)). As for muslim countries this era isn’t accepted.

As is described in (1), page. 241, was not completely understandable, why he put the Christ birth date to the recognized currently year which we mark as year 0 of CE. We shall cause one of the hypothesis why he behave namely by Klimishin in (1, p.241) with the reference to Ginzel (8, p.273). This hypothesis is based on the traditional dating of the Dionysis Exiguus life by the VI century CE.

In general anciently one of chief and requiring someone calendar calculations tasks for christian chronology was calculating so called easter table, table of calculations for determining dates for the Easter, for jewish Passover holidays. One of such tables in the years of Diocletian era was composed by Cyrill patriarch from Alexandria for a period years 153-247 by Diocletian eras by the duration 95 years (5 Methon's cycles of 19 years each one).

So as to this hypothesis Dionysis Exiguus according to (1) had decided to calculate easter table on nearest 95 years in Diocletian era (after a expired period in years 153-247 of 95 years duration in Diocletian era). Having decide from political considerations thats bad to calculate Christian celebration scoring years in the era of emperor which was Christian enemy and he had calculated the date of Christ Birth.

Eastern holiday is taking place in the first Sunday after first full moon date after equinox. With the account that by composition of Julian calendar spring equinox was accepted on the 21 March eventually was established the tradition according with that was accepted that Jesus Christ or suffered or resurrected namely in March 25.

This tradition is based on the proclaimed as falsed Actus Pilatus which if believe (1, p.211) was recognized by some figures from the Western Church (rome bishops Ippolit, Tertullian, Augustin). In this acts is going that Christ ostensibly had suffered at March 25. Then eventually was appeared the tradition to put the “first Eastern” – “Christ resurrection” on the March 25 which became more understandable with accounting that already then was established the viewpoints that namely in this day the World was created and the incarnation was held. Namely for this reason eastern taking place namely in March 25 accurately was calling “the Lord’s Eastern” "to underline triple coincidence.

The nearest year to which according to Dionysis calculations according to abovementioned hypothesis eastern was held on March 25 was year 279 of Diocletian era. Dionysis hereto time already knew about 532-year repeating period of solar and Moon cycles ( 532=28(years in solar cycle of julian calendar)*19(years in Moon Methon's cycle)), that is why he merely subtracted from figure 279 figure 532 and received, that Christ resurrected for 253 year till began Diocletian's era and was born to for 284 year. This place will be analized a little lower more explicitly.

With the accounting of existing tradition about Jesus Christ that he lived 31 year is merely calculating the year of his Birth: 284 to the Diocletian era beginning.

AD: ANNO DIONYSIS SIVE ANNO DIOCLETIANO?

Works by Dionysis Exiguus were repeatedly underwent criticism on behalf latest historians and chronologers. So if to believe Klimishin (1) he was criticized by Kepler who by even operated expression Anno Dionysis instead Anno Domini.

There is also very charakteristical and very interesting that years from Christ birth (Anno Domini) and years of Diocletian era (Anno Diocletiani) are giving in the abbreviation one and the same, AD. Moreover the abbreviature for the signing of the years before Christ Birth (ante Domini) was giving in the abbreviature the same AD.
Probably namely this led to numerous chronological mistakes

In the end of chapter we will mark, that the most popular denotation of Diocletian era was Alexandria era.

THE MISTAKES OF DIONYSIS EXIGUUS IN FULL MOON DATES CALCULATIONS AND WAS THE FIGURE 13 MAKE THE INFLUENCE TO THIS CALCULATIONS

Hence as was wrote above in year 247 of Diocletian's era was finished the eastern cycle with the 95 years duration. The nearest year in which full Moon was getting on March 25 was year 279 of Diocletian era or 32-th year of 95-years cycle or 13-th year of the SECOND in this 95-years eastern cycle 19-years Methon's cycle. The 13-th year of the first Methon's cycle was missing. Let’s try analyze this fact.

Speaking strictly if for Dionysis in a considered hypothesis for realization of eastern were relevant not only date of a full moon, but also day of week, anything surprising in it no. In solar cycle there is no two years with an interval per 19 years, in which one days of week or, speaking more general, Sunday characters, are coinciding (that is if in any year of February 15 it is necessary on Monday, it is impossible through 19 years to select the same year, in which one February 15 it would be necessary again on Monday).

Though in case for Dionysis the astronomy was relevant only and the calendar party of a problem was not relevant, diverse is possible also. Probably, a certain effect on him(it) has rendered number 13 as the number agrees cabbalistic to performances unhappy.

Here it would be desirable to mark two interesting facts.

1. In a western system of lunar cycles it is accepted to speak year with number 13 (or, as it still, with golden by number 13) has Eastern of March 24 (1, page 76).

2. In eastern system of numbering of lunar cycles the thirteenth year in cycle is equally that, in which one Eastern is necessary for the earliest date - March 21 (1, page 76). He is described by the letter A.

Probably the tracks of these traditions have the steep radicals to attribute travails of the Christ on these Dates.

And if to speak about astronomical errors, which one he has admitted, now it is authentically known, that the calculations Dionysis Exiguus, as they were set up above, were incorrect because of an imperfection of a then astronomy. The business that in obtained by Dionysis Exiguus year (31 AD) full moon was necessary on March 27, that for 2 days later to March 25. Dionysis Exiguus did not know about inaccuracy of Methon’s cycle, that resulted, in particular that by the time dates of full moons are sailing to the earlier dates of a julian calendar. The velocity of this movement is 1 day per 304 years.

JESUS CHRIST BIRTH AND RESURRECTION ACCORDING DIFFERENT SOURCES AND THE FORMAL SOLUTION OF THE RESURRECTION DATING PROBLEM ON THE BASE OF CALENDAR INFORMATION ABOUT HIM IN SOURCES ONLY

In section about the purposes of present activity we have shown, however accident-sensitive there is an information on birth of Jesus of the Christ from the point of view of its relative chronology. Besides of that there is very interesting opinion of XVII century chronograph: (quotation as to (2) with reference on (3):

(translation to English from then time Russian)

"What Christ Lord borned, about this many are of opinion, and someone more forty scored comprehensions”.

Among two noncanonical groups of sources telling about Christ there are two main groups containing according to (1) two various versions of Jesus Christ resurrection:

East version: (This version is dominating, here in after all years resurrection according to this version will betoken with letter e).

Such information are placed in the big group of sources, in particular, in Constantinopol the list of consuls year 395 (quotation as to (1), page. 242):

"Hic conss. passus est Christus die X Kal. Apr. et resurrexit VIII Kal. easdem" - "at these consuls suuffered Christ in 10-th day till April calends, and resurrected March 25"

Hence he suffered at March 23 and resurrected at March 25.

West version is less popular and is grunted on the group of sources which are saying Jesus Christ suffered in March 25 Friday and resurrected in Sunday 27-th. In further they will be marked with w. For example Chronograph 354 year belongs to them.

Quotation from  this chronograph 354 as to (1) with reference on (6):

"His consubilis dominus Iesus passus est die Ven. Luna XIIII" - "in their consulate Lord Christ suffered at the age of 14 days", and in chapter 13 "Roman bishops" read: "Imprante Tiberio Caesare passus est dominus noster Iesus duobus Geminis cons. VIII Kal. Apr." - "during Tibery suffered Lord our Jesus Christ at consulate both Gemins in 8-th day the april calends (of March 25).

Hence from those quotations we can conclude:

1. Eastern group of sources:

Christ had suffered in Sunday in full Moon in March 25, and according to Gospel he had resurrected in March 27.

2. Western group of sources:

Christ had suffered in Friday March 25 in full Moon and by Gospel he had resurrected in Sunday.

Both problems were soluted on computer by means of written expressly for this computer program. This program was wrote on the next way:

1. It marked all years occurred March full Moon in March 25. Those full Moon dates were calculated as to eternal Moons to calendar built on Gauss formulae and mentioned in (1) on page. 315. First of all was scored parameter according to table how the amount of six amendments and then at necessity from it the whole quantity of Moon months was subtracted.

2. With allowance for that, what really during full Moon complete Moon eminent on sky for three nights, on the first stage was taken glad broad range full Moons with the implications of the parameter of program from 22.5 till 27.5.

3. Next from chosen as to provision full Moons year old were chosen years, in who occurred necessary to us the day of the week (of March 25 Sunday for east the groups of sources and March 25 Friday for west). Range in question year old was chosen from -200 till +1200 CE.

Let's pay attention that our consideration for julian calendar are good even in the case when year was beginning not in January 1 but in March 1. If year was beginning later than March 1 we by the understable reason will substract from the obtaining number of year figure 1.

The results of the work of program are shown in table 1. Symbol e or w is belongness the group of sources (accordingly east and west). Column A are years, column B are March full Moon dates.

TABLE 1

THE FIRST MARCH FULL MOON DATES. THEORETICALLY PROBABLE CHRIST RESURRECTION DATES

Years FM-1   Years FM-1   Years FM-1   Years FM-1

-156w 24.0   0186w 23.4   0563e 25.5   0875w 26.1

We can by the similar way on the base of another reference try to calculate

THE YEAR OF JESUS CHRIST BIRTH

Consularia Constantinoipolitana who relates highanalyzed Jesus Christ resurrection on sunday March 25 about it birth writes so: (1), page. 244:

"His conss. natus est Christus die VIII Kal. Ian." - "at these consuls (August and Silvan) was given birth to Jesus Christ in eighth day till the january calends (of 25 december)".

In highmetioned chronograph of year 354 there is else instruction of year "Christ birth" (1), page. 245:

"Hoc cons. dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII Kal. Ian. d. Ven. Luna XV" - "At these consuls (Gaius Caesar and Emil Pablo) Lord Jesus Christ was given birth to in 8-th day till january the calends (of 25 december) in Friday 15-th Moons".

There are other versions of Jesus Christ birth. In particular there is the version that he was borned in summer. Very popular in a roman catholic world, unfortunately, the author with it is poorly familiar and what about all information of his Birth in winter is tribute to pagan tradition only. In the first version of work dates of his birth and duration of his life following from this information were considered comprehensively.

In particular by Chizhewski's opinion (7, p.42) as the day of Jesus Christ's birth was recognized day proclaimed by Aurelian roman emperor as Natalis Solis Invicti - (nonchangable day of Sun birth) - 25 December. Probably there was the first day when roman astronoms was fixings the growth of Sun day.

EFFORT TO CALCULATE OF PROBABLE DATE OF JESUS CHRIST RESURRECTION WITH THE ACCOUNTING OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE MISSING OF THREE DAYS DURING THE NICEA CATHEDRAL

If take in attention that Madler I. G. and Hlustin B. M. (if to believe (1), page. 222) wrote that during Nicea cathedral equinox were measured for some reason per day March 18 and have decided to miss in the calendar of three day and in order in this way of March 18 turned into 21. Thus if take into account that at the moment of a Nicea cathedral really missing of three days really could take place, we should solve still our task in case of presence of this missing.

If in some day 18 day of month was proclaimed as 21, this in the Sun and Moon cycle was reflecting on the following way:

- Moon cycle: full Moon dates was removing on three days back in comparasion with full Moon dates by the Julian calendar which held after Nicea cathedral (during our trip to the deepest times).

- Solar cycle: in this case year of Nicea cathedral should be shorter in three days. Hence the solar cycle is moving in three days forward (during this our trip to the deepest times). For the eastern group of sources it is moving from G to C (more comprehensively: the year with the first Sunday of year at January 7 after this Calendar three days missing has been turned with the year with first Sunday at January 3, going to earlier years), for the western one from B to E. And we wrote new program with accounting of those movements.

The results are placed in table 2. In first column there are years, in the second one full Moon dates.

TABLE 2.

THE FIRST MARCH FULL MOON DATES. THEORETICAL PROBABLE CHRIST RESURRECTION DATES WHICH COULD BE HELD WITH THE ACCOUNT OF THREE DAYS MISSING DURING NICEA CATHEDRAL

Years FM-1   Years FM-1   Years FM-1   Years FM-1

-163e 27.4   0202e 23.5   0598w 25.3   0967e 25.8

As is known, the julian calendar is original was established by Julian Caesar a little in diverse kind, than he became today. In particular the rigid order of sequence of months with even and odd number of days there took place.

As to the present view that according to [1], its calendar has gained only at the emperor August in 4 year of CE. In period from the Julian Caesar’s death per -43 years before reform of August per +4 years there was a certain tangle with leap-years.

That means, that for all our solutions, which one fall in this period, we should correlate julian dates absolute with julian dates of then time.

To make it it is rather simple: it is necessary to take into account, that at first leap-years were done each three years, instead of four. That is each twelve years, since -43 years, the ideal julian calendar escaped forward as contrasted to temporary one for one day.

About it there will be going in the table 3.

Table 3

WORK BY G.V.NOSOVSKI CHRIST BIRTH AND BEGINNING OF OUR ERA

G.V.Nosovski in (2) undertook efforts to compute Christ resurrection date as to the "Codex of saintfathers rules" by Matheus Vlastar (XIV-th century bizantical historian).

Text by Vlastar gives the following conditions of resurrection:

1. Circle of Sun is 23 (23-th year of solar cycle)
2. Circle of Moon is 10 (10-th year of Moon cycle)
3. March 24 on Saturday was jews Easter committed per day full Moon.

From teh reduded third condition we can conlcude that Matthew Wlastar with his dating of Christ suffering on March 23 belongs to the Eastern tradition so his his information can be considered as a particular case of already considered Eastern tradition.

Let me remind that solar cycle is time interval in which Julian Calendar dates completely repeat. Duration of solar cycle is 7 (days in week) * 4 (years in leap-year) = 28 years. Moon cycle is time interval in which full Moon dates appears at the same dates by Julian Calendar. Moon cycle duration is 19 years.

For contemporary reader, are possible, incomprehensible are shown terms as "Moon circle" and the "Sun circle". This number of years in solar and Moons cycle. By the account of these cycles was of so-called Earth creating. Through 532 year cycles solar and Moon cycles are repeated.

G.V. Nosovski obtained the result: year 1095 AD (full Moon scored as to tables in supplement 1 to (1) of March 23-24). Somewhat comes up else result year 563 AD (full Moon March 25). Far and away worse comes up year 31 AD, because full Moon in this year was of March 27. Let us repeat Dionysis didn't know about nonaccuracy of 532-years Methon's cycle and this circumstance led he to mistake.

So we shall try to make analisys of Vlastar's text.

There was many chronological schools each of them on the own way was placing all known for themselves events of world history. There was several schools which scored years from Earth creation and each of them had own traditions to calculate wellknown legendary events (sink flood, Abel and Cain, Moises and so on). Among mostpimortant chronological schools is necessary to remind jewish, Panodor's, 70 speculators and among the laters Usher's school. There is comprehensively wroten in Bickerman (4).

In case the scale of backdatings from creation of the world has arisen after the scores on months and on days of week (and so, most likely and was wherefore to observe annual motion of the Sun and moon and to compound the score of days on weeks much more easy, than to make a hypothesis about date of creation of the world, that would demand there is nobody of development of scientific or religious tradition), we and have considered our problem in more detail above.

We can show attitude with analogous scepticism and criticism to the issue of dating of Christ resurrection by year 5539 from Earth creation when circle to Moon was 10, and circle to Sun 23. Because this dating was build so: at first was marked the year of Jesus Christ birth from Earth creating (according to that to historical school, to which was belonging self Vlastar) and only subsequently were calculated the numrbers of Sun and Moon circles.

In case if dating scale from the Earth creation had appeared later then scoring of months and days of week. The most probable there was everything namely so, because to observe and fix the results of observing of Sun and Moon movements was uncomparable more merely than led the doctrina about date of Earth creation which demanded the some development of science aand religy traditions. We shall consider our task more comprehensive.

From this viewpoint we can analogously show not the best attitude to dating of Jesus Christ resurrection by Matheus Vlastar in year 5539 from the Earth creation when was the circle of Moon 10 and circle of Sun 23. Because of this dating was appearing so: firstly the Jesus Christ birth year was marked and soon the circles of Moon and Sun was calculated.

Thus, if we shall discard the information, which one to us informed Vlastar dating resurrection Christly from creation of the world both number of a circle of the moon and sun, thus that we shall receive the only calendar information on Jesus the Christ in eastern tradition. It was already considered above generally.

Conclusions :

1. It is ground of only calendar mentions Jesus Christ could revive in a broad band of years. See tables 1 and 2.

LITERATURE

1.Klimishin I. A. Calendar and chronology. M. Nauka 1985 (Russian: Calendar' i khronologiya. M Nauka 1985)
2.Nosovski G. V. Christ birth and beginning of our era. In book: A.T.Fomenko. Global chronology. M. 1993 (Russian: rozhdyeniye khrista i nachalo nashej ery)
3. Chronograph 1680 year. (Private collection)
4. Bickerman. Chronology of antiquity. Moscow Nauka. 1975
5. Fred Zaspel. Bible and Chronologie. Internet
6. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquissimorum. Berolini, 1892.
7. Chizhevski A.L. Earth in son embraces. (In Russian: Zemlya v obyatiyah Solntsa) M.Mysl 1995
8. Duluman E.K. The Calendars, yearscoring and Jesus Christ birth date. Atheistical Magazine in Internet (Calendari, letoischislenije i data rozhdenija Iisusa Khrista
9.Ginzel F.K. Handsbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie: Bd. III - Lpz, 1914, s. 273

Clicking here you can return to main site
Cliking here return to main site devoted to chronology
Clicking here you can send any message to author