Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
46. APOSTLE JAMES, THE BLOOD BROTHER OF THE LORD IS THEODOROS KASTAMONITIS.
After Christ’s death apostle James, ‘the blood brother of the Lord’ became the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem [142], v.1, p.563; [78], list 24. James’ primacy is highlighted in various sources. In the modern translation: ‘The Holy Mother of God had James, brother of the Lord WAS THE FIRST IN EVERYTHING sanctifier and besides without him the holy apostles did not do anything’.
And in another place: ‘At that time James, the brother of the Lord, WAS THE FIRST bishop in Jerusalem’ [85[, p.211.
There survives the following information about Jacob’s death. George Hamartolos writes: ‘The great Jacob, brother of the Lord … HIS KNEES WERE REPUTED TO HAVE ACQUIRED THE HARDNESS of camels’ knees … for his great righteousness and his wondrous life he was called Just and ‘awlia’, which means ‘embracing people’,‘goodness’ and ‘holiness’. And as James was well known and respected, and glorious angels alike, during the Passover Feast, when many thousands of Jews congregated in the temple, the scribes took him upon the summit of the temple and wishing to denigrate the teachings of Christ said …"We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they have gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the Passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people and we also, listen to thy persuasion’ [7], p.211.
However to the scribes' and Pharisees' dismay, James reply did not meet their expectations. Accordingly, full of rage the evil men infuriated the scribes and Pharisees... threw down the just man... But one among them, ONE OF THE FULLERS (in [85]: BLANCHER or BLEACHER – Author) TOOK THE STAFF (some call this stick or staff ‘sowlak’) WITH WHICH HE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO WRING OUT THE GARMENTS HE DYED, AND HURLED IT AT THE HEAD OF THE JUST MAN and so he suffered martyrdom there and then… Soon thereafter Jerusalem was laid siege upon … This happened to the Jews as an avengement for James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ’ [7], p.213.
Such are the accounts of James the Apostle surviving in the church tradition. This story line literally identical we discover in ’Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates, soon after the death of Andronicus-Christ. I.e. exactly where it is supposed to be.
Choniates reports: ‘In the end he (i.e. emperor Isaac Angelos – Author) entrusted the command and administration of all affairs to HIS UNCLE ON HIS MOTHER’S SIDE, Theodoros Kastamonitis. He was an educated man, who understood the administration of affairs very well, in particular everything concerning the collection of public taxes, and the emperor, who elevated him into the rank of Logothete (a senior administrative title, an equivalent of a minister or Secretary of State – Tr.), became his subject so to speak, following all his instructions, and even better than his serf, fulfilling (executing) all his orders almost without any discussions. Unfortunately Kastamonitis SUFFERED WITH STIFFNESS OF HIS LEG JOINTS (ARTHRITIS), so they had to carry him to (see) the emperor, and usually two carriers carried him around in the sedan chair… In the meantime crowds of people, the administrative elite and all of the emperor’s close relatives accompanied this living dead, were running in front of him or were walking on the both sides of his sedan chair lamenting not his, but sooner their own destiny BECAUSE NOTHING WAS DONE WITHOUT HIS WILL, EVEN NONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT NOBLEMEN DARED TO SIT IN KASTAMONITIS’ PRESENCE, BUT EVERYONE HAD TO STAND IN FRONT OF HIM AS HIS SLAVES. The emperor was not put out by that … he allowed him to use a PURPLE reins, horse-cover and to sign in PURPLE ink both the states documents and his personal letters …
It happened on the fifteenth of August: Kastamonitis wishing to attend the service on the feast day of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, with great splendour was crossing the city market with trailing numerous entourage of the states dignitaries, … when suddenly, for the first time in his life he heard someone calling him the PRINCE, AND THEN THE EMPEROR … The very same moment … as a result of being addressed to with such unusually HIGH TITLES, HE SUFFERED AN EPILEPTIC FIT. Immediately one JUDGE WILAwho happened to be there (I gladly conceal his name), tore open logothete’s clothes and TRIED TO BANDAGE HIS CALVES WITH THE BELT OF HIS UNDERGARMENTS, hoping in this way to stop bad matter reaching his head; but inevitably HE COULD NOT SAVE HIM FROM A SEVERE STROKE… … several days later Kastamonitis passed away’ [141], p.91-93.
Several years later the famous siege of Czar-Grad of 1204 began which resulted with the city’s capture and defeat [117].
A good correspondence is very clear.
- Kastamonitis – the CHIEF ruler, and James – the LEADER among the apostles, everyone listens to him.
- Kastamonitis suffers with the STIFFNESS OF HIS LEG JOINTS (ARTHRITIS). He cannot walk, he is carried around in the sedan chair. Apostle James is also afflicted with pain in his legs – HIS KNEES ARE WEAK.
- Kastamonitis dies as a result of a STROKE (BLOW TO HIS HEAD) during a great holiday (Passover). Apostle James’ death also occurs during a big celebration and also in the result of BLOW TO THE HEAD.
- When Kastaminitis suffers a stroke a certain person tries to bandage his legs with some UNDERGARMENTS. Apostle James was beaten with ‘THE STAFF FOR WRINGING THE GARMENTS OUT’.
- A man who ran up to Kastamonitis during his stroke was a judge ‘WILA’. A man who hits Apostle James on his head was named as a Blancher or a Bleacher. Both of them are not the names, but the nicknames. ’ВИЛ’ (WILA) and ‘БЕЛЬНИК’ (BLANCHER or BLEACHER in Russian) is in fact the same word, as B (Russian letter ‘Б’) and W (Russian letter ‘B’) turn into one another.
- A man who happened to be next to Kastamonitis during his STROKE (blow to the head) ‘tore open his clothes ’, i.e. TOOK OFF (‘SOVLYOK’ in Russian) the clothes, see above. And the description of the apostle James’ death reported that a man hurled a staff at the apostle ‘SOWLAK’. It is possible that ‘SOWLAK’ is a slight distortion of the word ‘SOVLYOK’ (to tear open clothes)
- Kastamonitis DIES as a result of a STROKE (BLOW TO THE HEAD). For Apostle James BEING STRUCK ON THE HEAD turned out to be LETHAL.
- Several years following the death of Kastamonitis Czar-Grad was besieged and captured by the crusaders in 1204. And several years after the death of Apostle James the city of Jerusalem was CAPTURED by the Roman troops. We struck upon the identification of Czar-Grad with Jerusalem earlier, see [MET1] and CHRON1 and CHRON2.
We would like to note that the match we discovered included virtually everything known about Apostle James and Kastamonitis.
To conclude let us discuss the name ‘Theodore Kastamonitis’ itself. We would like to remind you that in the old times the origin of the names were the soubriquet or nicknames. The meaning of the name ‘THEODORE’ is ‘God’s gift’ in Greek, i.e. Theos+Gift. Apostle James could have easily been called by this name. In regards to KASTAMONITES, it could have been that an expression describing ‘bad legs’ or ‘bad bones’ was used here (in Russian it sounds as ‘KOSTI LOMIT’ – ‘ACHY BONES’).
47. THE APOCALYPTIC ‘NUMBER OF THE BEAST’ SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX.
One of the most famous places from the Apocalypse is ‘The Number of the Beast’ 666 (the Book of Revelation 13). Today it is considered that 666 is ‘the number of Antichrist’ and generally ‘something bad’. Such a perception originated most likely in the XVII century due to various interpretations of the Antichrist published under the first Romanovs. In particular this question is discussed in detail in the ‘Book about Faith’ (‘Kniga o Vere’) published in Moscow in 1648 in the third year of Alexei Mikhailovich reign.
However we know that the old texts written in one religious community and emotionally coloured accordingly, could have later on perceived by the representatives of the opposing camp ‘as their own’. Where the ‘bad’ swapped places with the ‘good’ and vice versa. Let’s say a text about Christ written by his adversaries presents Christ in a negative way. A good example is ‘Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates which we are already familiar with, in which emperor Andronicus-Christ was directly called the BEAST. The same kind of ‘beastlike terminology’ became firmly attached to Andronicus on the pages of various European chronicles, for example in one by Robert de Clari [117]. Some of the Western-European historians of the XIX century give Andronicus a similar characterisation, for example Ferdinand Gregorovius. He phrased it this way: ‘Stained with evil doing, bathing in blood tyrant Andronicus’ [39], p.118-119. We have already given the examples of the negative characterization of Andronicus-Christ by the historians of a certain camp. This is how Christ was characterised by his enemies.
Let us return to the mediaeval times. Later on, after the vast victory of the Christianity such hostile texts portraying some evil beast could have been perceived not as a story about Christ, but on the contrary as a narrative about ‘Antichrist’. Imagine a late Christian author reading an old chronicle written in the camp of Isaac Angelos and giving an account of the ‘evil deeds of the beast Andronicus’. He would hardly associate such a description with Andronicus-Christ. On the contrary he would most likely perceive it as a story about the Antichrist. Thus the stories about Christ could have turned into the texts about the Antichrist. And we should take it into consideration.
Why do we speak about it here? As it happens the year of Christ’s birth which we have calculated, i.e. 1152 A.D., in the old chronicles using the standard and widely used Byzantine-Russian calendar ‘from Adam’, should have been written as year 6660. In fact: 5508+1152=6660. But in the old style of writing the number ‘zero’ was omitted, see CHRON4, ch.13:5. Therefore the date 6660 was written as THREE LETTERS DENOTING SIX – in the place of thousands, hundreds and tens respectively. Number 666 is written down with the same letters for six, because the letter representations of a six in the place of thousands and the one digits were identical. Fig.2.97
shows how the two numbers: 666 and 6660 were denoted in the Old Slavonic way of writing, i.e. using letters. You can clearly see that a small confusion easily turns number 6660 into number 666. It happens if a six’s ‘tail’ in the place for thousands which denotes a thousand digit got rubbed off. Or a scribe decided that such a symbol is put there by mistake. Then a six from the thousands place passes to a six in the singles unit and shifts to the right. This results in a number 666. We will repeat: in the old way of writing numbers - the two numbers comprising the three sixes were easily confused, even if they were in different places.
There is only one other year which can be considered as year 666. I.e. year 6666, as the designation of the thousand digit could have been omitted and written down simply as year 666. But year 6666 from Adam is year 1158 A.D., i.e. still very close to year 1152 A.D. A question arises - is this match accidental? I.e. is it random, that the date of Christ’s birth: 1152, when written down, - we will repeat it, according to the standard Byzantine-Christian calendar as year 666[0], practically coincides with the apocalyptic ‘Number of the Beast’ 666? Most likely – it is not.
Our opinion is as follows. As we have already demonstrated in our previous works several years ago, the text of the Book of Revelation was created not earlier than 1486 A.D., as it is this particular date which was coded in it. We will remind you, that the date ‘1486’ is written in the Book of Revelation with the aid of a horoscope. A horoscope written down with the symbols with a clear astronomical meaning was already discovered in the Book of Revelation by N.A.Morozov in 1914. See the details in [MET1], CHRON1, ch.3 and in our book ‘What century is it now?’ (‘Kakoi seitchas vek?’).
Consequently for the author of the Book of Revelation the events of the XII century were already long ago, more than two hundred years old. He could have easily had at his disposal the old texts created in the camp of the enemies of Andronicus-Christ, which the chronicler could have erroneously perceived as Christian. But it goes without saying that by the ‘beast’ described in these texts the late author began to recognise Antichrist, but not Christ. Could this explain the fact that the apocalyptic beast ‘whose number is 666’ has the ‘horns like a lamb’ (The Book of Revelation 13:11), i.e. similar to the horns of a Holy Lamb representing Christ? Besides a faint hint at Christ in the statement that ‘the beast’ was wounded to death, but ‘his deadly wound was healed’ (The Book of Revelation 13:3). Does this mean that there is a hint made at Christ’s Resurrection? Moreover ‘the beast’ orders ‘to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live’ (The Book of Revelation 13:14). It is strongly reminiscent of the Christian icons on which Christ is depicted dying with a wound in his side from the puncture of a spear and then – resurrected. This kind of a text could have been written in the camp of the enemies of Christianity in the XIV century who were against the icons of Christ. In the XV century such text could have been cited in the Book of Revelation simply without understanding the crux of the matter. The numerous images of ‘the beast’ started to be created and were widespread, see for example fig.2.98 
.
Eventually the said place from the Book of Revelation was disproportionately magnified. What kind of interpretation of the ‘terrible number 666’ there were! It is likely that such
sentiments did not arise accidentally. They were instigated from above. We refer to the already mentioned ‘The Book about Faith’ of 1648 and other numerous works about Antichrist. In 1876 some of them were put together and republished as a separate large book called ‘The Book about Antichrist’ (‘Kniga ob Antikhriste’) [77].
‘Дети последняя година есть, якоже слышасте яко Антихрист грядет, и ныне Антихристи мнози, о правде! Яко много предотечев, но и сам уже близ есть по числу еже о нем, 666. Число бо человеческо есть
Антихристово. Кто весть, аще в сих летех, 1666-х, явственых предотечех
его, или того самого не укажет’ [78], list 270. We will highlight that the book was by no means published in secret, but on the royal order, with the Patriarch’s blessing. It looks like at that time someone needed to stir the society up, increasing its nervousness. It would be interesting to find out the true purpose of such a campaign. In any case it was very successful and the debates about ‘the evil number 666’ remain to this day in the pages of the press. They make movies about it etc.
We would like to offer some preliminary explanation which occurs naturally in light of our reconstruction. In the beginning of the XVII century the Great Empire with Russia as its metropoly broke up. In Russia many did not like it. Many wished for the return of the old times. At first the public resistance was crushed with military force. But the new people who came to power needed the longer lasting remedies which would weaken or destroy the wish to resist from the very beginning. Such methods are well known. As a rule it is the ideological pressure directing the public attention towards a false goal. Having planted an idea about the imminent end of the world into people’s minds the cunning Romanovs achieved their goal. Many lost heart. Why worry about the fate of the ‘Mongol’ Empire if in 15-20 years the end of the world will come anyway?
The following words in the Book of Revelation referring to the ‘beast whose number is 666’ (‘his number is Six hundred threescore and six’) draw our attention: ’And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive A MARK IN THEIR RIGHT HAND, OR IN THEIR FOREHEADS … Here is wisdom’ (The Book of Revelation 13:16). These words can of course be understood in different ways and many interpret it in the most negative way. But yet it should not go unnoticed that the words ‘a mark in the right hand, or in their foreheads’ resemble the common Christian sign of the cross, i.e. a custom to cross yourself. The sign of the cross in the church books is described using literally the same words: to place the right hand on the forehead, then on the stomach, then on the right shoulder and then on the left one [78]. The apocalyptic ‘sign’ resembles the initial words of this description.
The following place from ‘The Book about Faith’ becomes extremely interesting. It is claimed that there existed a certain Book of Revelation of St. Andrew (St. Andrei) which gave the Christians an instruction to ALWAYS WEAR A CROSS. It refers to the baptismal cross worn against the skin. We quote: ‘Святый Андрей, во Апокалипси, от сих выше помяненных благопотребных вин конечне крест Христов правоверным всегда носити на себе повелевает. Сим бо знамением благочестивии от неверных разделяемся’[78], list 73. But then it turns out that there existed not only ‘The Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation), which is known to everyone today, but also another Apocalypse - of St. Andrew. Which instructed the Orthodox Christians to wear the Christian sign – the cross. Could it be that the corresponding fragment from the Apocalypse of St. Andrew turned upside down entered the modern edition of St. John’s Book of Revelation?
In ‘Biblical Russia’ (‘Bibleiskaya Rus’) and CHRON6, Appendix 2, we wrote already that the handwritten church-Slavonic Kormchaya kniga (‘Book of the Helmsman’) of 1620 held in the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library (Moscow), manuscript Ф.256/238, list 232, when listing the holy books of the Old and New Testament the following books are named as two separate books: ‘konechnoye Ioannovo Otkrovenie’ )’final Revelation of John’) and ‘Apocalypse’. But ‘Revelation of John’ is the modern ‘Apocalypsii’ (‘The Book of Revelation’) which is given exactly this title in the canonical edition. Therefore, there must have been another Apocalypse. Could it be, that it referred to the Apocalypse of St. Andrew? Today it is apparently lost. But, as we showed above, some extracts from it became a part of the modern edition of the Book of Revelation of St. John in a distorted way.
48. THE CHRONOLOGICAL ERROR BY DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS (DENNIS THE SMALL) AND ITS MARK IN ‘HISTORIA’ BY CHONIATES.
We would like to remind you that according to the Scaligerian history the modern version of dating Christ’s Nativity as the beginning of A.D. dates back to the Mediaeval monk Dionysius Exiguus [73], p.331. Dionysius Exiguus in the VI century allegedly calculated the date of Christ’s Nativity based on the known calendar-astronomical specifications. However in our previous works it was shown that Dionysius Exiguus’ calculations could not have been carried out in the VI century and were done in the late mediaeval period. Secondly, we proved that Dionysius’ calculations either contained an astronomical error, or were falsified at a later time. The date Dionysius should have obtained, based on the specified criteria, is 1064 for the Nativity and 1095 for the crucifixion of Christ. And by no means the beginning of A.D. Let us clarify that Dionysius was calculating the date of crucifixion specifically, and he obtained the date of the Nativity by deducting 31 years from it in accordance with his theory about the age of Christ. For details see the book ‘Biblical Russia’ (‘Bibleiskaya Rus’) or CHRON6, ch.19.
Thus Dionysius’ initial mediaeval calculation gave or should have given (after the elimination of the astronomical errors from his calculations) the date of 1095 for the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Christ. Therefore the Christian Orthodox church of the XIV-XVI cc. believed that Christ was crucified in 1095. We should stipulate that it was possibly just one of the existing versions of that time. All the versions of that kind were a result of the CALCULATIONS as in the canonical church texts the date of the nativity of Christ is missing. It is not a part of the permanent canonical tradition. For this very reason there could have been several versions. Dionysius’ calculations were based on a certain rather definite calendar-chronological ideas. It led Dionysius to an erroneous date. He obtained year 1095 instead of 1185, i.e. made an error of approximately a hundred years. We will try to explain why this happened a little bit later. Here we will note that in ‘Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates there is a clear trace of Dionysius’ calculations.
Choniates reports the following about Andronicus-Christ: ‘At the beginning of September of the second indiction of year 6600 he decides to declare himself an emperor’[140], p.282. Here Choniates gives a date according to the Byzantine era from Adam, i.e. from the creation of the world (anno mundi). When recalculating according to the years of A.D. we obtain year 1092 A.D. (6600 - 5508 = 1092). But Andronicus-Christ reigned for three years. Therefore the date of crucifixion and Resurrection should fall on years 1095. I.E. EXACTLY ON THE DATE CALCULATED BY DIONYSIUS.
Of course here Choniates reports a wrong date. Even from the point of view of the Scaligerian chronology. We would like to remind you that the reign of Andronicus dates as the XII century, and not the XI century. But most likely Choniates’ error is not accidental, but a remnant of some mediaeval source where the epoch of Christ dated ‘according to Dionysius’ as the XI century. We will repeat once more that here we refer to the ‘correct Dionysius’ and not the date which is attributed to him today.
We would like to note that in the ‘Historia’ by Choniates there are very few dates and two of them are erroneous by a hundred years. We have mentioned one of them already. Another date given in the first volume of ‘Historia’ is also erroneous by a 100 years, but this time in the other direction. We refer here to Stephanos Hagiochristophorites’ attempt to capture Isaac Angelos. Choniates writes: ‘Having arrived to Isaac’s house … in the evening of the 11th September 6794 and having entered the hallway, he ordered Isaac to come out’ [140], p.349. But 6794 from Adam is 1285 A.D. (for the September date we should deduct 5509). In fact he is speaking of year 1185! And this is not a misprint of the modern edition. It is exactly the date which is written in the Greek original of ‘Historia’ [140], p.349.
We can see that Choniates’ dating easily shifts by a hundred of years both ways. Therefore a hundred years shift is clearly present here. We will return to this statement in the next chapter.
Now we will explain why Dionysius made an error of a 100 years. By Dionysius we should perceive a certain Mediaeval chronologist of the XIV-XV cc., i.e. of the era prior to the adoption of Christianity under Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoi, see below and our book ‘Kazaki-arii: iz Rusi v Indiyu’ (‘The Cossacks-Aryans: from Russia to India’). It seems that Dionysius really did his best to accurately calculate the date of the Nativity. But the following circumstance let him down. In particular he relied on the calculation of the first spring full moon = Jewish Passover. This astronomical event he determined according to Computus. But in his time it was already established that the paschal full moons (i.e. the first spring full moons in the calendar-Paschal) take place not earlier than the 21st March. We discussed in detail the reason for this, see [РЕК]:2 and CHRON6, ch.19. We will briefly recap our conclusions.
Initially the paschal full moon was not on the 21st, but on the 15th March, but the Christian Pascha (Easter) was designated only after the whole Jewish Passover week was finished. To clarify, the Jewish Passover was celebrated for seven days. And the Christian Pascha was designated only after it. Thus it could not have been earlier that the 21st March. But later on in the Orthodox Computus (Paschalia) in place of the seven days of the Jewish Passover as a paschal boundary was left only the first day of the Jewish Passover, i.e. Passover itself. Nevertheless the boundary of the 21st March was preserved. As a result it turned out that the spring full moons before the 21st March ceased to be considered as the paschal ones. In other words, the 7-day deviation of Easter (orthodox Passover) from the first day of the Jewish Passover was replaced by the shifting of the boundary of the calendar full moons forward by seven days. As a result some spring astronomical full moons ceased to be considered as the paschal ones. In particular THE FULL MOON OF THE 20 MARCH 1185 CEASED TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE PASCHAL ONE. I.e. in Computus it was not anymore considered the calendar first spring full moon, though astronomically it was exactly that. In the Computus it was replaced with the next full moon (in April).
By then Dionysius most likely did not know about it. By his time the fact that Computus was changed in this way was forgotten. As a result, when using Computus, Dionysius was not able to calculate the 20th March 1185 as the Paschal full moon. I.e. was unable to obtain the correct date of Christ’s Resurrection. However, he most likely had a rough idea about the time of Christ’s life and he pointed at the closest more or less suitable date, which was possible to determine based on the amended Computus, i.e. year 1095. Eventually Scaliger and the other chronologists of the XVI-XVII cc. falsified Dionysius’ result attributing the computation of the ‘zero year A.D.’ to him.
49. WHY THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORS CLAIMED THAT CHRIST WAS BORN IN THE YEAR 41 OR 42 OF AUGUSTUS.
In the ecclesiastical tradition there is an accepted view that Christ was born on the 41st or 42nd year of Augustus’ rule. ‘The Roman bishop Irenaeus and Tertullian thought that ‘Christ Our Lord came to this world circa the 41st year of Augustus’ rule’. Eusebius of Caesarea speaks more concretely: 'It was the 42nd year of Augustus’ rule, and the 28th year of the Egyptian reign … when … in Judean Bethlehem … Jesus Christ was born’ … Epiphanius indicates … the 42nd year of Augustus … The Greek historian John Malalas … dated ‘The Nativity of Christ’ as … the 42nd year of Augustus, and ‘The Paschal Chronicle’ placed it in the 28th year of Augustus reign in Egypt, ‘the consulate of Lentulus and Piso’’ [73], p.331-332. In Svyatsy (church calendar) of the Moscow press published in 1649 it is said: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ was born to Blessed Virgin Mary incontestably, incomprehensibly and infinitely on the 42nd summer of king Augustus, the sole ruler of the universe at that time’ (Svyatsy for the 25th December).
Thus many church writers and chroniclers claimed that Christ was born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. A question arises – where did this date come from? We will try to get to the bottom of it.
As we saw, the year of the nativity of Christ is most likely 1151. Having deducted 41 from 1152 we obtain year 1111. But taking into consideration a possible typical hundred year discrepancy which we spoke of just now, it is necessary to view the alternatives of the years 1101 and 1211. The question is whether the reign of Augustus began during one of the stated years according to the mediaeval chroniclers. Yes, it did. Our study of Ptolemy’s Almagest showed that the era of Nabonassar used by Ptolemy as the standard era throughout his entire work, most likely is simply the common Byzantine era from the creation of the world. The only difference is that Ptolemy leaves out the thousand digit everywhere and gives only the last three digits of the date. It is clear why he did so. The epoch described in the Almagest ENTIRELY LIES WITHIN THE SAME SEVENTH MILLENNIUM according to the era from the creation of the world. And it was completely unnecessary each time to add ‘six thousand to all the dates. See the details in the ‘Astronomicheskii analiz khronologii’ (‘The Astronomical Analysis of the Chronology’), p.470-471 or CHRON3, ch.10.
In particular Ptolemy mentioned the first year of Augustus’ reign. Taking into account the previous comments, it is precisely the year 1211, see [MET3]:3, p.471.
It seems that the chroniclers of the XIV-XVI cc. when attempting to date the Nativity of Christ either shifted the nativity forward by a 100 years, or Augustus’ reign by a hundred years to the past. It resulted in Christ being born on the 41 or 42 year of Augustus. Which was entered into the chronicles.
On the whole, the epoch of the earliest chronological calculations the results of which survive today, is probably the epoch of the Christianity of the XIV-XV cc. By then the XII century – the epoch of Christ – was already a considerable antiquity. Two hundred years for those times, when they still were writing on the papyrus and parchment paper, was not little at all. Where the common chronology did not exist yet. They calculated in their own way in different places, and in general, according to the reign of the kings. Whose names were easily forgotten and mixed up.