Chapter 1.
DATING THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST AS THE MIDDLE OF THE XII CENTURY.
7. THE OLD BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND THE ORIGIN OF THE NAMES OF THE MONTHS IN OUR CALENDAR.
Our analysis of Palaea unexpectedly brought us to an interesting and important conclusion. Apparently the ancient author who first wrote down the Gospel dates in Paleae used the January beginning of the year. The conclusion is indeed unexpected as for example, in the XVI-XVII cc. old Russian menologium ("month-set", a book arranged according to the months – Translator), - it was September and March, but not January, which were marked as the beginning of the year. Where the paschal beginning, ie. the beginning of the paschal cycles fell on March, and the civil year began in September. In the XVII century, the January beginning of the year in Russia was considered to be Western. In Romanov Russia the January year was introduced only by Peter I in 1700 [20], p.12. However as we begin to understand it now, the really old Russian texts telling us about the events of the XII century adopted specifically the JANUARY beginning of the year.
It was already said above that the conversion of the beginning of the year from January to September took place in the Empire most likely in the end of the XIV century – in the epoch of the state adoption of Christianity by Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy. It is possible that a new beginning of the year was chosen in connection with the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 which took place in 1380. But then it turns out that the date which we came across in Palaea was put into the chronicle before the XV century – when the beginning of the year was still January. This means that the chronicler who wrote it down lived quite close to the times of the events described. Which means that his date can be trusted.
The fact, that the January beginning of the year is more ancient, than the September one, is also affirmed in the Scaligerian history. However for some reason it is considered that the January new year is a ‘purely Western’ invention. Allegedly it emerged at some point ‘long ago’ in Italy and only under Peter I came to Russia for the first time. Such a view is most likely wrong. As it turns out that the January year apparently came to the West specifically form the East. It was brought there in the epoch of the great Empire either from Czar-Grad or from Russia. But in the East the beginning of the civil year at the end of the XIV century was shifted to September (they started the ecclesiastical year in March). They did not make such a shift in the West and preserved the old January beginning of the year.
It is not surprising that in the really old datings of the Gospel events we see the archaic January year.
In this respect it would be interesting to address our calendar and see what traces of the old beginnings of the year it carries within itself. One such a trace is an inset day in the end of February (the 29th February). It is clear that an additional day in the leap years was inserted not in the middle, but AT THE END OF THE YEAR. That is why the rule of the leap years directly points out, that when it was introduced, the year began in March.
Let us turn to the names of the months in our calendar. They could also tell us of something.
YANVAR’ (JANUARY in Russian – Tr.) or, as they wrote earlier, JANUARY. Here probably echoes the name of JANUS.
FEVRAL' (FEBRUARY IN Russia – Tr.). Most likely originates from FEB, i.e. Sun, sunny. To remind, ‘Feb (Phoebus) – is one of the epithets of the Ancient Greek god Apollo, as the ‘DEITY OF LIGHT’ [154]. The second half of the word FEVRAL’, namely RAL’ or RL might mean Sun, as the Su in the Old Russian was called YARILO.
MART (MARCH in Russian – Tr.) We will talk about it later.
APREL’ (APRIL in Russian – Tr.) or, as they wrote before APRILII OR AVRILII. Here the name of Aurelian can be recognised. In the Roman history they called the famous emperor Aurelian by this name, the ‘restorer’ of the Roman Empire allegedly in the III century A.D.
MAI. (MAY in Russian – Tr.) We will talk about this later.
IYUN’(JUNE in Russian – Tr.). Clearly the name of JUNII or IOANN (JOHN).
IYUL’ (JULY in Russian – Tr.) This is the name JULIUS, JURII (due to conversion of L into R) or Georgii (George-Tr.)
AVGUST (AUGUST in Russian – tr.) The name of the Roman emperor Augustus.
SENTYABR’ (SEPTEMBER in Russian – Tr.) Literally – ‘The seventh’ month. In this name the countdown from March is reflected here, as if September is the seventh month, then consequently March is the first month.
OKTYABR’(OCTOBER in Russian – Tr.) Literally: ‘The eighth’ month.
NOYABR’ (NOVEMBER) ‘The ninth’ month.
DEKABR’. (DECEMBER in Russian – Tr.) ‘The tenth’ month.
Thus the following picture emerges. The eight months are given proper names. Where among them there clearly present the names of the Roman emperors (for example, Julius, Augustus) or the Roman gods (Janus). All the ‘named’ months are in order. They are followed by the ‘unnamed’ months. They are simply numbered, counting from March as the first month. It appears that that for some time there existed a custom in the Empire to call the months of the year by the names of the great kings, gods or saints. And then at some point such practice stopped. The four vacant months not named after any kings remained under the impersonal numbers: the seventh, the eight, the ninth and the tenth.
It is conceivable that the months received the names of the kings beginning with January. When there appeared the need to call some month by a great name, they would take the next successive ‘unoccupied’ one. If so then during that time January should have been the first month of the year. As it stands at the very beginning in the row of the ‘named’ months. That is why it was this very month that was named after the king. Before it there is a block of ‘impersonal’ numbered months: 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th.
It is interesting to look more closely at what names were attributed to the months of the year and what order they stand in. There immediately appears a rather orderly, though of course, unconfirmed picture. The proper names in the names of the months started to appear in the epoch of the formation of the Great = ’Mongol’ Empire in the end of the XIII – beginning of the XIV cc. The first three months were named in honour of John The Baptist (Janus-January), Christ (Feb (Phoebus)= Sun - February) and Mary Mother of God (Theotokos - literally this translates as God-bearer or the one who gives birth to God – Tr.): MRT = MR (Theos) March. To remind you, Mother of God’s name was written on the icons as MR (T), where with (T) in brackets we refer to Fita (Ѳ, ѳ- is a letter of the Early Cyrillic alphabet - Tr.) which can be read both as T and as F.
Thus we can express an idea that the names of the first three months of the old January year were used to commemorate the Gospel events. They were given the names of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and Mary Mother of God.
Then, supposedly, should follow the months dedicated to the first czars-khans, the founders of the Great = ‘Mongol’ Empire. And indeed the fourth month – April – bears the name of Aurelian (conversion of U into P). Who according to the dynastical parallelisms which we discovered, stands at the beginning of the Great Empire, see [MET1} and CHRON, ch.6. To remind you, Aurelian’s nickname was the ‘Restorer of Empire’(Aurelian proclaimed himself restitutor orbis - ‘Restorer of the World’ – Tr.).
In regards to the name MAY we shall say the following. It is considered that the Roman month of May was identified with the goddess Maia (Maiestas) [95], v.2, p.89. Maia was thought to be a consort of Vulcan and a mother of Mercury. In the name of Vulcan there can be heard most likely a combination of Bel-Khan, i.e. Bely Khan (White Khan in Russian – Tr.). Possibly Maia was a wife of Aurelian and the couple of Aurelian and Maia were the ancestors of the royal dynasty of Georgiy = Yuriy = enghis Khan and Ivan Kalita. Incidentally the names of Yuliy (Julius) = Yuriy and Ioann (John) are next in the order of the months: July and June. Thus the pair of the months of April and May were supposedly called in honour of the ancestors of the royal-khans Great = ‘Mongol’ Empire. Then at this point we recall biblical Abraham and his wife Sara or Sarah. Possibly Sarah was called Maia. And the name Abraham is quite close to the name Aurelian. Both names have a root AVR (ABR=AUR – Tr.) and differ only by their endings. Incidentally, the names Maia and Sara might have meant ‘mother’, ‘mama’ (maia) and ‘czaritsa’(Sarah).
Then follow Ioann (June) and Yuriy (July). In them we recognise the founders of the Empire – Ivan Kalita = Batu Khan and his brother Georgiy Pobedonosets (Saint George) = Genghis Khan = Julius (Yuriy) Caesar.
And finally, the name AUGUST. It is the great czar-khan, most likely Dmitry Donskoy, aka Constantine the Great. It was from Augustus who the mediaeval rulers descend from. I.e. from the czar-khan who adopted Christianity and introduced it over the entire territory of the ‘Mongol’ Empire. Incidentally the Scaligerian historians are usually opposed to such mediaeval ‘lineage from Augustus’ and attribute it to the over excited imaginations of the mediaeval kings who did not understand the correct Scaligerian history at all.
Then the naming of the months with the czars’ names ceased. Most likely it was connected with the canonization of the church calendar and paschalia in the end of the XIV – the beginning of the XV cc. I.e. around the beginning of the Great Indiction in 1409 [72].
8. THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 1185.
The ecclesial legend preserved the records of Christ’s crucifixion being accompanied by the solar eclipse. Fig.1.40
presents one of numerous ancient depictions of the crucifixion where above the cross to the left there is the Sun still shining, and to the right it has gone dark, eclipsed by the Moon. Virtually the same depiction of the solar eclipse we can also see on the painting of Benozzo Gozzoli [81], p.7.
We discussed the question about the Gospel eclipse in detail in [MET1], [MET2], CHRON2, HRON6, ch.19 and in ‘Bibleiskaya Rus’ (‘Biblical Russia’). We will summarise the essence of this matter. It is directly said in the Gospel that ‘the sun stopped shining’ (Luke 23:45). However if Christ was crucified during Jewish Passover, i.e. during the full moon or close to it, as the Gospels claim, then there could not have be solar eclipse at that moment. As the solar eclipses can take place only on the the new moon. I.e. when both the Moon and the Sun are situated on the same side of the Earth. Only in this case the shadow from the Moon can glide over the Earth creating a solar eclipse. However during the full moon the Moon is situated on the opposite side of the Earth than the Sun and that is why on the contrary the Earth can cast the shadow over the Moon (due to which there occurs the lunar eclipse). But the Moon cannot cast the shadow over the Earth at this time.
This contradiction between the Gospels and astronomy can be resolved, generally speaking, in two ways. Either it was the solar eclipse, but it took place not on the day of Christ’s crucifixion. Or it was not the solar eclipse, but the lunar eclipse. Strictly speaking there are also the other ways. For example, we can consider that there was no eclipse at all, or that Christ was crucified not on the days of the full moon. But these kind of suppositions would have led to significant conflict with the Gospels and the ecclesiastic legend. However the crucifixion of Christ during the Jewish Passover is stated quite clearly and unequivocally by all the evangelists. A lot of things are said in the Gospels on this subject in detail. On the other hand the very fact of the eclipse is also always highlighted in the Christian tradition. The eclipse is mentioned by various church authors and is also reflected in the Christian service (a custom to put out the candles from the third to the sixth songs of the canon).
Now when we calculated the most probable date of the crucifixion, i.e. 1185, we can check exactly which eclipse accompanied Christ’s crucifixion. Was there either a full lunar eclipse or full solar eclipse which took place in the end of March 1185 or around that time? Yes, there was.
It was the full solar eclipse on 1 May 1185. The parameters of the given eclipse are stated for example in the astronomical canon included in [98], v.5, p.125. It is also possible to use any modern computer program to calculate the solar eclipses in the past. The trajectory of the Moon’s shadow on the surface of the Earth can be worked out using the following table 4.
| Table 4. Full solar eclipse of 1 May 1185 |
|||
| begins | midpoint | ends | |
| longitude(degree) | -91 | -25 | +71 |
| latitude(degree) | +10 | +52 | +31 |
The time of the midpoint of the total eclipse: 13 hours 18 minutes by Greenwich. In fig.1.41 
we marked the band of the fool shadow of this eclipse. According to the calculations using the astronomical programs the band of totality of the 1 May 1185 moved along the Volga from Yaroslavl to Kazan. There it was full. In the place of future Moscow, for example, it was nearly full. To remind, around the band of totality there is situated a rather wide band of half-shadow in which the eclipse can be seen as partial. In fig.1.41 with two black circles on the eclipse axis there are marked the cities of Vladimir and Kazan. Another circle below marks Czar-Grad.
We would like to point out an important matter. The eclipse of 1185 was very close to the place in the sky where circa 1150 the Star of Bethlehem flared up, see above. Both events took place in the same Taurus constellation, see fig.1.42 
and fig.1.43 
. We marked the location of the Bethlehem star flare with an asterisk and with a black circle we marked the place in the sky where the full solar eclipse took place in 1185.
We do not rule out that the outburst of the supernova could still be visible in the sky in 1185 (as only thirty years passed since). But even if it had already receded, the spot of its appearance in the sky should have been still fresh in the memory of the people. The very fact itself should have connected the eclipse of 1185 with Christ’s crucifixion in people’s mind. Plus to that the eclipse occurred soon after the crucifixion. I.e. only a month had passed from the end of March to the 1st May. And as the eclipse could be seen not in Czar-Grad, but in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia and in Middle Volga region, then it could have quite possibly coincided with the news of Christ’s crucifixion in Czar-Grad coming to Russia. That is why for the people of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia the eclipse of 1 May 1185 could have coincided with the crucifixion. Which eventually was reflected in the Gospels. We will note that in that time the news of the execution would have been travelling from Czar-Grad to Vladimir and Suzdal Russia for about a month.
The eclipse of the 1 May 1185 was recorded in the Russian chronicles. There survive the entries of the eyewitnesses who were near the rivers Donets and Oskol (where the eclipse was partial). Under year 1185 Tatishev notes: ‘By the evening of 1 May we saw the solar eclipse, only a part of which remained, as the moon of the third day… And said (Prince Igor - Author) to his lords: ‘Do you see this?’ They, having blanched, kept hung their heads down and said: ‘This sign is not for the good’’, [130], v.2, p.408-409.
In the Gospels it is correctly stated that the eclipse was postmeridian: ‘It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining’ (Luke 23:44). To clarify, the sixth hour could then have meant midday, if the time was counted from sunrise. It is known, that in the old days such method was widely used, see ‘Bibleiskaya Rus’’ (‘Biblical Russia’ - Tr.) and CHRON6, ch.19.
In [MET2] and CHRON2, ch.2:1.1 we already noted that the commentators of the Gospels repeatedly expressed the following bewilderment. How to match the Evangelists report about the solar eclipse – ‘the sun stopped shining’ – with ‘there was darkness over the whole land’ according to their own words, which lasted for three hours. As a regular solar eclipse can be observed in each particular location not longer than several minutes. A natural solution was offered by Andrzej Niemojewski. He wrote: ‘We know that a solar eclipse ‘over the whole country’ cannot last for three hours. It could have lasted at most 4-8 minutes.
The Evangelists, who supposedly possessed the astronomical knowledge, could not have said and certainly did not say such nonsense… in Luke (XXIII, 44)… and in Mark (XV, 33) we read… in Matthew (XXVII, 45)… ‘OVER THE WHOLE LAND’, which indeed can last for several hours. The ENTIRE solar eclipse of the 6 May 1883 lasted for 5 hours and 5 minutes, but the TOTAL eclipse lasted 3 hours and 5 minutes, i.e. exactly the amount of time stated in the Gospels’ [100], p.231.
Thus, it is most likely that the Evangelists when saying THREE HOURS did not mean the duration of ‘darkness falling’ in any particular point on the surface of the Earth, but the TOTAL TIME OF MOON’S SHADOW PASSING OVER THE EARTH’S SURFACE. The three hour Moon’s shadow was drawing a long band ‘over the whole land’ within which ‘there was darkness’. For a reason the Evangelists used here an expression ‘OVER THE WHOLE LAND’.
Such understanding of the Gospels implies a rather advanced level of insight by their authors into the nature of the solar eclipses. But if the events took place in the XII century and were recorded and edited not earlier than the XIII-XIV cc., or even significantly later, then there is nothing surprising there. In the Middle Ages the astronomers already understood well the mechanism of the solar eclipses.
9. MURDER OF EMPEROR ANDRONICUS I COMNENUS
Earlier we calculated the date of Christ’s crucifixion – 1185 A.D. Let us now address the chronological tables and see if this year is mentioned in connection with any notorious event connected with the murder of any famous king or saint. To remind you, in the Gospels Christ was on numerous occasions called the King of the Jews and such words were even written on the sign nailed to the cross: ‘So Pilate asked Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" He answered him, "You have said it."… There was also an inscription over Him written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: "This is the King of the Jews." (Luke 23:3, 23:38).
In order to answer this question the most detailed chronological tables are required. In 2000 we compiled such tables, which incorporated both the contemporary full chronological lists of the rulers, and the data from various primary sources not included in the modern reference books. The tables were compiled on all the kingdoms of Europe, Asia, North Africa, including all the variants in the time of ruling and the names of each ruler – whether secular or church ones, which we have found. We published the resulting tables in the book [ РЕК ]:3 (as of 2002). There we also presented a list of the primary sources and chronological tables which we had worked on by that time.
The exhaustive search according to the chronological tables which we compiled (we have an electronic version of them) was organised in the following way. We searched for all the rulers whose reign ended in 1185 A.D. It turned out there were not so many of them. Here is the full list :
- Roman Pope Lucius III , born Ubaldo. Years of ruling: 1181-1185
- Byzantine emperor Andronicus I Comnenus: 1182-1185.
- King of Jerusalem Baldwin IV , called the Leper or the Leprous, 1174-1185.
- The Russian prince Iziaslav Vasilievich Polotsky. Died circa 1185.
- The founder of the Burgundy dynasty in Portugal, King Alfonso I: 1139-1185. <
And that is that. Only five rulers. We will repeat that the electronic search was exhaustive. We only did not consider the annually appointed officials, as for example, the Novgorodian governors.
In the resulting list the Byzantine emperor Andronicus Comnenus immediately stands out, as he ruled exactly for three years: 1182-1175. To remind you, according to ecclesiastical legend that was exactly the duration of Christ’s ‘public ministry’, see above. We open the textbook on the Byzantine history [44] and read the following: ‘Andronicus was known to each Romei by his unusual fate’, [44], p.27. It is said that he reigned for three years after which he was savagely mutilated and killed by the city mob on the Hippodrome of Czar-Grad. There folk songs were composed about his unusual fate. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates wrote:
’About Andronicus’ death we both read in books and hear the folk songs, besides the other prophetic and iambic verses there are also these: ‘Suddenly from a seat at a lavish banquet a man rises up red in the face… and having invaded he will reap people like straw… HE WHO CARRIES A SWORD WILL NOT ESCAPE THE SWORD’ [140], P.361. Curiously Choniates uses here a Gospel aphorism which says: ‘FOR ALL WHO DRAW THE SWORD WILL DIE BY THE SWORD’ (Mathew 26:52).
It is extremely interesting to look at the life description of Andronicus I in more detail. Can any correspondence with the Gospels be found in it? We are going to move on to this next .
