Dionysius Exiguus - Revision history

Crissov: /* Easter tables */ {{main|Beda Venerabilis' Easter cycle}} although this section is actually more extensive

2024-11-21T14:40:54Z

Easter tables: {{main|Beda Venerabilis' Easter cycle}} although this section is actually more extensive

← Previous revision		Revision as of 14:40, 21 November 2024
Line 57:		Line 57:
	==Easter tables==		==Easter tables==
	{{more citations needed section\|date=December 2019}}		{{more citations needed section\|date=December 2019}}
			{{main\|Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table}}
	In 525, Dionysius prepared a table of 95 future dates of [[Easter]] (532–626) and a set of rules ("argumenta") explaining their calculation ([[computus]]).{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=99}} This followed a request by [[Pope John I]], possibly influenced by the fact that the then current Victorian table gave an Easter date for 526 (19 April) which was the 22nd day of the moon. In a previous embarrassment, this table had given Saturday, 24 April as the date of the Greek Easter in 482.{{sfnp\|Blackburn\|Holford-Strevens\|1999\|pp=793–794}} Note well that only the first nine arguments are by Dionysius – arguments 10 to 16 as well as the second paragraphs of 3 and 4 and the third paragraph of 9 are later interpolations.{{sfnp\|Jones\|1943\|p=70}} Arguments 11 and 12 imply that these were interpolated in the year 675, shortly before [[Bede]]. Dionysius also introduced his table and arguments via a letter to a bishop Petronius (also written in 525) and added another explanatory letter (written in 526). These works in volume 67 of the 217-volume ''[[Patrologia Latina]]'' also include a letter from Bishop [[Proterius of Alexandria]] to [[Pope Leo I\|Pope Leo]] (written before 457). Though not named by Dionysius, this collection was recently called his ''Liber de Paschate'' (''Book on Easter'') by Audette.		In 525, Dionysius prepared a table of 95 future dates of [[Easter]] (532–626) and a set of rules ("argumenta") explaining their calculation ([[computus]]).{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=99}} This followed a request by [[Pope John I]], possibly influenced by the fact that the then current Victorian table gave an Easter date for 526 (19 April) which was the 22nd day of the moon. In a previous embarrassment, this table had given Saturday, 24 April as the date of the Greek Easter in 482.{{sfnp\|Blackburn\|Holford-Strevens\|1999\|pp=793–794}} Note well that only the first nine arguments are by Dionysius – arguments 10 to 16 as well as the second paragraphs of 3 and 4 and the third paragraph of 9 are later interpolations.{{sfnp\|Jones\|1943\|p=70}} Arguments 11 and 12 imply that these were interpolated in the year 675, shortly before [[Bede]]. Dionysius also introduced his table and arguments via a letter to a bishop Petronius (also written in 525) and added another explanatory letter (written in 526). These works in volume 67 of the 217-volume ''[[Patrologia Latina]]'' also include a letter from Bishop [[Proterius of Alexandria]] to [[Pope Leo I\|Pope Leo]] (written before 457). Though not named by Dionysius, this collection was recently called his ''Liber de Paschate'' (''Book on Easter'') by Audette.

The Mysterious El Willstro: Slight clarification, as Abbots are still Monks, just high-ranking ones.

2024-09-20T02:10:17Z

Slight clarification, as Abbots are still Monks, just high-ranking ones.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:10, 20 September 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.		From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.

	The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of Rome", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still a monk late in life).		The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of Rome", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still an ordinary monk late in life).

	==Origins==		==Origins==

ScholarlyGentleman420: Spelling mistake. "till" is not a correct substitution for "until".

2024-08-04T19:48:24Z

Spelling mistake. "till" is not a correct substitution for "until".

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:48, 4 August 2024
Line 78:		Line 78:

	A synodal letter to the church of Alexandria states:		A synodal letter to the church of Alexandria states:
	<blockquote>All our eastern brothers who up ~~till~~ now have not been in agreement with the Romans or you or with all those who from the beginning have done as you do, will henceforth celebrate Pascha at the same time as you.</blockquote>		<blockquote>All our eastern brothers who up until now have not been in agreement with the Romans or you or with all those who from the beginning have done as you do, will henceforth celebrate Pascha at the same time as you.</blockquote>

	And the letter of the Emperor Constantine to bishops who had not attended the council states:		And the letter of the Emperor Constantine to bishops who had not attended the council states:

Remsense: Undid revision 1228620099 by IndoPakAfgh (talk): overlinking

2024-06-12T12:55:33Z

Undid revision 1228620099 by IndoPakAfgh (talk): overlinking

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:55, 12 June 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.		From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.

	The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of [[Rome]]", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still a monk late in life).		The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of Rome", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still a monk late in life).

	==Origins==		==Origins==

IndoPakAfgh at 07:06, 12 June 2024

2024-06-12T07:06:32Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:06, 12 June 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.		From around the year 500 until his death, Dionysius lived in Rome. He [[translation\|translated]] 401 Church canons from Greek into Latin, including the [[Apostolic Canons]] and the decrees of the [[First Council of Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], and [[Council of Sardica]], and a collection of the [[decretal]]s of the [[pope]]s from [[Pope Siricius\|Siricius]] to [[Pope Anastasius II\|Anastasius II]]. These ''[[Collectiones canonum Dionysianae]]'' had great authority in the West, and they continue to guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics.

	The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of Rome", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still a monk late in life).		The author of a continuation of Dionysius's ''Computus'', writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of [[Rome]]", and [[Bede\|the Venerable Bede]] accorded him the honorific ''abbas'' (which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend [[Cassiodorus]] stated in ''Institutiones'' that he was still a monk late in life).

	==Origins==		==Origins==

Skyerise: Renamed references using RefRenamer

2024-05-27T21:24:49Z

Renamed references using RefRenamer

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:24, 27 May 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:

	==Origins==		==Origins==
	According to his friend and fellow-student, [[Cassiodorus]], Dionysius, although by birth a "[[Scythian]]", was in character a true Roman, most learned in both tongues (by which he meant Greek and Latin).<ref>''Dionysius Monachus, Scytha natione, sed moribus omnino Romanus, in utraque lingua valde doctissimus''. {{cite book\|title=De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum\|author=Cassiodorus\|language=la\|chapter-url=http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0485-0585,_Cassiodorus_Vivariensis_Abbas,_De_Institutione_Divinarum_Litterarum,_MLT.pdf\|chapter=Chapter XXIII}} At the ''[http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ Documenta Catholica Omnia]'' online library.</ref> He was also a thorough [[State church of the Roman Empire\|catholic]] Christian and an accomplished Scripturist.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm Dionysius Exiguus in the Catholic Encyclopedia.]</ref> The use of such an ambiguous, dated term as "[[Scythians\|Scythian]]" raises the suspicion that his contemporaries had difficulties classifying him, either from lack of knowledge about him personally or about his native land, [[Scythia Minor (Roman province)\|Scythia Minor]].<ref name=Amory>{{cite book \|first=Patrick \|last=Amory \|title=People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|year=2003}}</ref>{{rp\|127}} By the 6th century, the term "Scythian" could mean an inhabitant of Scythia Minor, or simply someone from the north-east of the Greco-Roman world, centred on the Mediterranean. The term had a widely encompassing meaning, devoid of clear ethnic attributes.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}} Even for the "Scythian monk" [[Joannes Maxentius]], friend and companion of Dionysius, the two monks are "Scythian" by virtue of their geographical origin relative to Rome, just as [[Faustus of Riez]] is a "[[Gallia\|Gaul]]".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}}		According to his friend and fellow-student, [[Cassiodorus]], Dionysius, although by birth a "[[Scythian]]", was in character a true Roman, most learned in both tongues (by which he meant Greek and Latin).<ref>''Dionysius Monachus, Scytha natione, sed moribus omnino Romanus, in utraque lingua valde doctissimus''. {{cite book\|title=De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum\|author=Cassiodorus\|language=la\|chapter-url=http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0485-0585,_Cassiodorus_Vivariensis_Abbas,_De_Institutione_Divinarum_Litterarum,_MLT.pdf\|chapter=Chapter XXIII}} At the ''[http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ Documenta Catholica Omnia]'' online library.</ref> He was also a thorough [[State church of the Roman Empire\|catholic]] Christian and an accomplished Scripturist.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm Dionysius Exiguus in the Catholic Encyclopedia.]</ref> The use of such an ambiguous, dated term as "[[Scythians\|Scythian]]" raises the suspicion that his contemporaries had difficulties classifying him, either from lack of knowledge about him personally or about his native land, [[Scythia Minor (Roman province)\|Scythia Minor]].<ref name="Amory-2003">{{cite book \|first=Patrick \|last=Amory \|title=People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|year=2003}}</ref>{{rp\|127}} By the 6th century, the term "Scythian" could mean an inhabitant of Scythia Minor, or simply someone from the north-east of the Greco-Roman world, centred on the Mediterranean. The term had a widely encompassing meaning, devoid of clear ethnic attributes.<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|127}} Even for the "Scythian monk" [[Joannes Maxentius]], friend and companion of Dionysius, the two monks are "Scythian" by virtue of their geographical origin relative to Rome, just as [[Faustus of Riez]] is a "[[Gallia\|Gaul]]".<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|127}}

	The dubious assertion, based on a single Syriac source, that the [[Eastern Roman\|Eastern-Roman]] rebel general [[Vitalian (general)\|Vitalian]], to whom Dionysius seems to have been related, was of [[Goths\|Gothic]] extraction was the basis for labelling, without any further evidence, all of the [[Scythian monks]], Dionysius included, as "Goths".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|128}} In Greek and Latin sources, Vitalian is sometimes labelled with the same ambiguous term "Scytha"; he is presented as commanding "Hunnic", "Gothic", "Scythian", "[[Bessi]]an" soldiers, but this information says more about the general's military endeavours, and bears little relevance to clarifying his origins. Furthermore, since none of the Scythian monks expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual, with the [[Arianism\|Arian]] Goths who at that time ruled Italy, a Gothic origin for Dionysius is questionable.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130}} Vitalian seems to have been of local Latinised [[Thracians\|Thracian]] stock, born in Scythia Minor or in [[Moesia]]; his father bore a Latin name, Patriciolus, while two of his sons had Thracian names and one a Gothic name.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|129}} By the time of the flourishing of the Scythian monks, the provinces from the Lower Danube, long since Latinised, were already a centre for the production of Latin-speaking theologians. Most likely Dionysius was also of local [[Thraco-Roman]] origin (romanized [[Getae\|Geto]]–[[Dacians\|Dacian]]), like Vitalian's family to whom he was related, and the rest of the Scythian monks and other Thraco-Roman personalities of the era ([[Justin I]], [[Justinian]], [[Flavius Aetius]], etc.).<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130–131}}		The dubious assertion, based on a single Syriac source, that the [[Eastern Roman\|Eastern-Roman]] rebel general [[Vitalian (general)\|Vitalian]], to whom Dionysius seems to have been related, was of [[Goths\|Gothic]] extraction was the basis for labelling, without any further evidence, all of the [[Scythian monks]], Dionysius included, as "Goths".<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|128}} In Greek and Latin sources, Vitalian is sometimes labelled with the same ambiguous term "Scytha"; he is presented as commanding "Hunnic", "Gothic", "Scythian", "[[Bessi]]an" soldiers, but this information says more about the general's military endeavours, and bears little relevance to clarifying his origins. Furthermore, since none of the Scythian monks expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual, with the [[Arianism\|Arian]] Goths who at that time ruled Italy, a Gothic origin for Dionysius is questionable.<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|130}} Vitalian seems to have been of local Latinised [[Thracians\|Thracian]] stock, born in Scythia Minor or in [[Moesia]]; his father bore a Latin name, Patriciolus, while two of his sons had Thracian names and one a Gothic name.<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|129}} By the time of the flourishing of the Scythian monks, the provinces from the Lower Danube, long since Latinised, were already a centre for the production of Latin-speaking theologians. Most likely Dionysius was also of local [[Thraco-Roman]] origin (romanized [[Getae\|Geto]]–[[Dacians\|Dacian]]), like Vitalian's family to whom he was related, and the rest of the Scythian monks and other Thraco-Roman personalities of the era ([[Justin I]], [[Justinian]], [[Flavius Aetius]], etc.).<ref name="Amory-2003"/>{{rp\|130–131}}

	==Works and translations==		==Works and translations==
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.		Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.

	Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="j">{{cite journal \|first=John P. \|last=Pratt \|url=http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html \|title=Yet another eclipse for Herod \|journal=The Planetarian \|volume=19 \|number=4 \|date=December 1990 \|pages=8–14 \|quote=Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed.}}</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="j" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>		Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="Pratt-1990">{{cite journal \|first=John P. \|last=Pratt \|url=http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html \|title=Yet another eclipse for Herod \|journal=The Planetarian \|volume=19 \|number=4 \|date=December 1990 \|pages=8–14 \|quote=Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed.}}</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="Pratt-1990" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>

	Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.		Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.

Skyerise: format ref

2024-05-27T21:24:32Z

format ref

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:24, 27 May 2024
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.		Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.

	Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="j">John P. Pratt, [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html "Yet another eclipse for Herod"] ~~originally published in ''~~The Planetarian~~'', vol.~~ 19~~, no.~~ 4, ~~Dec.~~ 1990~~, pp.~~ 8–14. "Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed."</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="j" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>		Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="j">{{cite journal \|first=John P. \|last=Pratt \|url=http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html \|title=Yet another eclipse for Herod \|journal=The Planetarian \|volume=19 \|number=4 \|date=December 1990 \|pages=8–14 \|quote=Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed.}}</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="j" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>

	Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.		Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.

Skyerise: format ref

2024-05-27T21:21:57Z

format ref

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:21, 27 May 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:

	==Origins==		==Origins==
	According to his friend and fellow-student, [[Cassiodorus]], Dionysius, although by birth a "[[Scythian]]", was in character a true Roman, most learned in both tongues (by which he meant Greek and Latin).<ref>''Dionysius Monachus, Scytha natione, sed moribus omnino Romanus, in utraque lingua valde doctissimus''. {{cite book\|title=De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum\|author=Cassiodorus\|language=la\|chapter-url=http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0485-0585,_Cassiodorus_Vivariensis_Abbas,_De_Institutione_Divinarum_Litterarum,_MLT.pdf\|chapter=Chapter XXIII}} At the ''[http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ Documenta Catholica Omnia]'' online library.</ref> He was also a thorough [[State church of the Roman Empire\|catholic]] Christian and an accomplished Scripturist.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm Dionysius Exiguus in the Catholic Encyclopedia.]</ref> The use of such an ambiguous, dated term as "[[Scythians\|Scythian]]" raises the suspicion that his contemporaries had difficulties classifying him, either from lack of knowledge about him personally or about his native land, [[Scythia Minor (Roman province)\|Scythia Minor]].<ref name=Amory>Patrick Amory, ''People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554~~'',~~ Cambridge University Press, 2003.</ref>{{rp\|127}} By the 6th century, the term "Scythian" could mean an inhabitant of Scythia Minor, or simply someone from the north-east of the Greco-Roman world, centred on the Mediterranean. The term had a widely encompassing meaning, devoid of clear ethnic attributes.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}} Even for the "Scythian monk" [[Joannes Maxentius]], friend and companion of Dionysius, the two monks are "Scythian" by virtue of their geographical origin relative to Rome, just as [[Faustus of Riez]] is a "[[Gallia\|Gaul]]".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}}		According to his friend and fellow-student, [[Cassiodorus]], Dionysius, although by birth a "[[Scythian]]", was in character a true Roman, most learned in both tongues (by which he meant Greek and Latin).<ref>''Dionysius Monachus, Scytha natione, sed moribus omnino Romanus, in utraque lingua valde doctissimus''. {{cite book\|title=De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum\|author=Cassiodorus\|language=la\|chapter-url=http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0485-0585,_Cassiodorus_Vivariensis_Abbas,_De_Institutione_Divinarum_Litterarum,_MLT.pdf\|chapter=Chapter XXIII}} At the ''[http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ Documenta Catholica Omnia]'' online library.</ref> He was also a thorough [[State church of the Roman Empire\|catholic]] Christian and an accomplished Scripturist.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm Dionysius Exiguus in the Catholic Encyclopedia.]</ref> The use of such an ambiguous, dated term as "[[Scythians\|Scythian]]" raises the suspicion that his contemporaries had difficulties classifying him, either from lack of knowledge about him personally or about his native land, [[Scythia Minor (Roman province)\|Scythia Minor]].<ref name=Amory>{{cite book \|first=Patrick \|last=Amory \|title=People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|year=2003}}</ref>{{rp\|127}} By the 6th century, the term "Scythian" could mean an inhabitant of Scythia Minor, or simply someone from the north-east of the Greco-Roman world, centred on the Mediterranean. The term had a widely encompassing meaning, devoid of clear ethnic attributes.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}} Even for the "Scythian monk" [[Joannes Maxentius]], friend and companion of Dionysius, the two monks are "Scythian" by virtue of their geographical origin relative to Rome, just as [[Faustus of Riez]] is a "[[Gallia\|Gaul]]".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|127}}

	The dubious assertion, based on a single Syriac source, that the [[Eastern Roman\|Eastern-Roman]] rebel general [[Vitalian (general)\|Vitalian]], to whom Dionysius seems to have been related, was of [[Goths\|Gothic]] extraction was the basis for labelling, without any further evidence, all of the [[Scythian monks]], Dionysius included, as "Goths".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|128}} In Greek and Latin sources, Vitalian is sometimes labelled with the same ambiguous term "Scytha"; he is presented as commanding "Hunnic", "Gothic", "Scythian", "[[Bessi]]an" soldiers, but this information says more about the general's military endeavours, and bears little relevance to clarifying his origins. Furthermore, since none of the Scythian monks expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual, with the [[Arianism\|Arian]] Goths who at that time ruled Italy, a Gothic origin for Dionysius is questionable.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130}} Vitalian seems to have been of local Latinised [[Thracians\|Thracian]] stock, born in Scythia Minor or in [[Moesia]]; his father bore a Latin name, Patriciolus, while two of his sons had Thracian names and one a Gothic name.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|129}} By the time of the flourishing of the Scythian monks, the provinces from the Lower Danube, long since Latinised, were already a centre for the production of Latin-speaking theologians. Most likely Dionysius was also of local [[Thraco-Roman]] origin (romanized [[Getae\|Geto]]–[[Dacians\|Dacian]]), like Vitalian's family to whom he was related, and the rest of the Scythian monks and other Thraco-Roman personalities of the era ([[Justin I]], [[Justinian]], [[Flavius Aetius]], etc.).<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130–131}}		The dubious assertion, based on a single Syriac source, that the [[Eastern Roman\|Eastern-Roman]] rebel general [[Vitalian (general)\|Vitalian]], to whom Dionysius seems to have been related, was of [[Goths\|Gothic]] extraction was the basis for labelling, without any further evidence, all of the [[Scythian monks]], Dionysius included, as "Goths".<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|128}} In Greek and Latin sources, Vitalian is sometimes labelled with the same ambiguous term "Scytha"; he is presented as commanding "Hunnic", "Gothic", "Scythian", "[[Bessi]]an" soldiers, but this information says more about the general's military endeavours, and bears little relevance to clarifying his origins. Furthermore, since none of the Scythian monks expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual, with the [[Arianism\|Arian]] Goths who at that time ruled Italy, a Gothic origin for Dionysius is questionable.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130}} Vitalian seems to have been of local Latinised [[Thracians\|Thracian]] stock, born in Scythia Minor or in [[Moesia]]; his father bore a Latin name, Patriciolus, while two of his sons had Thracian names and one a Gothic name.<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|129}} By the time of the flourishing of the Scythian monks, the provinces from the Lower Danube, long since Latinised, were already a centre for the production of Latin-speaking theologians. Most likely Dionysius was also of local [[Thraco-Roman]] origin (romanized [[Getae\|Geto]]–[[Dacians\|Dacian]]), like Vitalian's family to whom he was related, and the rest of the Scythian monks and other Thraco-Roman personalities of the era ([[Justin I]], [[Justinian]], [[Flavius Aetius]], etc.).<ref name=Amory/>{{rp\|130–131}}

Skyerise: move 1 reused ref into works cited

2024-05-27T21:20:23Z

move 1 reused ref into works cited

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:20, 27 May 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:
	Dionysius ignored the existing table used by the Patriarchate of Rome, which was prepared in 457 by [[Victorius of Aquitaine]], complaining that it did not obey [[Alexandria]]n principles, without actually acknowledging their existence. To be sure that his own table was correct, he simply extended a table prepared in Alexandria that had circulated in the west in Latin, but was never used in the west to determine the date of Easter (however, a variant of it was used in the [[Byzantine Empire]], in Greek). The Latin table was prepared by a subordinate of Bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] shortly before Cyril's death in 444. It covered a period of 95 years or five decennovenal (19-year) cycles with years dated in the [[Era of Martyrs\|Diocletian Era]], whose first year was 285 (the modern historical year in progress at Easter). Diocletian years were advantageous because their division by 19 yielded a remainder equal to the year of the decennovenal cycle {{nowrap\|(1–19).}}		Dionysius ignored the existing table used by the Patriarchate of Rome, which was prepared in 457 by [[Victorius of Aquitaine]], complaining that it did not obey [[Alexandria]]n principles, without actually acknowledging their existence. To be sure that his own table was correct, he simply extended a table prepared in Alexandria that had circulated in the west in Latin, but was never used in the west to determine the date of Easter (however, a variant of it was used in the [[Byzantine Empire]], in Greek). The Latin table was prepared by a subordinate of Bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] shortly before Cyril's death in 444. It covered a period of 95 years or five decennovenal (19-year) cycles with years dated in the [[Era of Martyrs\|Diocletian Era]], whose first year was 285 (the modern historical year in progress at Easter). Diocletian years were advantageous because their division by 19 yielded a remainder equal to the year of the decennovenal cycle {{nowrap\|(1–19).}}

	Ultimately, [[Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table]], meanwhile extended from the years 532–626 to the years 532–721,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=152}} must have been adopted at Rome and also have arrived in Britain and Ireland,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=153}} where, however in both cases certainly not before the second quarter of the seventh century,~~<ref>L~~ Holford-Strevens~~, ''The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction'', Oxford (~~2005), p 50~~.</ref>~~ [[Victorius of Aquitaine]]'s lunar limits 16–22 were gradually replaced with Dionysius’ lunar limits 15–21; only then the discord between the churches of Rome and Alexandria regarding the correct date for the celebration of Easter came to an end, and only from then both these authoritative churches used identical tables and hence observed Easter on the same day.		Ultimately, [[Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table]], meanwhile extended from the years 532–626 to the years 532–721,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=152}} must have been adopted at Rome and also have arrived in Britain and Ireland,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=153}} where, however in both cases certainly not before the second quarter of the seventh century,{{sfnp\|Holford-Strevens\|2005\|p=50}} [[Victorius of Aquitaine]]'s lunar limits 16–22 were gradually replaced with Dionysius’ lunar limits 15–21; only then the discord between the churches of Rome and Alexandria regarding the correct date for the celebration of Easter came to an end, and only from then both these authoritative churches used identical tables and hence observed Easter on the same day.

	The Greek tables had begun with the new moon which fell (on 29 August) the day before the starting date of their chronology, which was 30 August 284. The [[epact]] thus calculated was carried over unchanged by Dionysius into his tables together with a number from one to seven, calculated annually, called by the Greeks the "day of the [planetary] gods" and in the west the "concurrent". This number the Greeks used for calculating the day of the week for any date in the [[Coptic calendar\|Alexandrian civil calendar]] (a late form of the [[Egyptian calendar\|Egyptian solar calendar]] which included a final leap day every four years), which involved no more than simple arithmetic because the twelve months ran consecutively and all had thirty days. These two variables were understood neither by Dionysius nor by the other western computists, who were used to working with the age of the moon on 1 January and the Sunday letters to determine the Sundays. This is why the tables took so long to gain acceptance, but the values were eventually assimilated into the theory, the concurrent as the weekday of 24 March and the epact as the age of the moon on 22 March.~~<ref>L~~ Holford – Strevens~~, ''The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction'', Oxford (~~2005), pp 49–51~~.</ref>~~		The Greek tables had begun with the new moon which fell (on 29 August) the day before the starting date of their chronology, which was 30 August 284. The [[epact]] thus calculated was carried over unchanged by Dionysius into his tables together with a number from one to seven, calculated annually, called by the Greeks the "day of the [planetary] gods" and in the west the "concurrent". This number the Greeks used for calculating the day of the week for any date in the [[Coptic calendar\|Alexandrian civil calendar]] (a late form of the [[Egyptian calendar\|Egyptian solar calendar]] which included a final leap day every four years), which involved no more than simple arithmetic because the twelve months ran consecutively and all had thirty days. These two variables were understood neither by Dionysius nor by the other western computists, who were used to working with the age of the moon on 1 January and the Sunday letters to determine the Sundays. This is why the tables took so long to gain acceptance, but the values were eventually assimilated into the theory, the concurrent as the weekday of 24 March and the epact as the age of the moon on 22 March.{{sfnp\|Holford-Strevens\|2005\|pp=49–51}}

	Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table owes its strong structure to his distant predecessor [[Anatolius of Laodicea\|Anatolius]], who invented the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is an application of the [[Metonic cycle]] in the [[Julian calendar]].{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|pp=65-66}} Its lunar cycle is the nearby variant of [[Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria\|Theophilus]]' 19-year lunar cycle proposed by [[Annianus of Alexandria\|Annianus]] and adopted by bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] in the first half of the fifth century.{{sfnp\|Mosshammer\|2008\|pp=202-203}} The Metonic structure of this so-called classical Alexandrian 19-year lunar cycle contained in Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table is reflected by the structure of its 19-year periodic sequence of [[epact]]s.{{sfnp\|Zuidhoek\|2017\|p=87}}		Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table owes its strong structure to his distant predecessor [[Anatolius of Laodicea\|Anatolius]], who invented the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is an application of the [[Metonic cycle]] in the [[Julian calendar]].{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|pp=65-66}} Its lunar cycle is the nearby variant of [[Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria\|Theophilus]]' 19-year lunar cycle proposed by [[Annianus of Alexandria\|Annianus]] and adopted by bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] in the first half of the fifth century.{{sfnp\|Mosshammer\|2008\|pp=202-203}} The Metonic structure of this so-called classical Alexandrian 19-year lunar cycle contained in Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table is reflected by the structure of its 19-year periodic sequence of [[epact]]s.{{sfnp\|Zuidhoek\|2017\|p=87}}
Line 104:		Line 104:
	**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface		**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface
	**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]		**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]
			* {{cite book \|first=L. \|last=Holford-Strevens \|title=The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction \|publisher=Oxford \|year=2005}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}		* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}		* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}

Skyerise: fix cite errors: move uncited to FR

2024-05-27T21:16:55Z

fix cite errors: move uncited to FR

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:16, 27 May 2024
Line 100:		Line 100:
	* {{cite book \|first1=Bonnie \|last1=Blackburn \|first2=Leofranc \|last2=Holford-Strevens \|title=The Oxford Companion to the Year \|publisher=Oxford \|year=2003}} A corrected reprinting of the 1999 original edition.		* {{cite book \|first1=Bonnie \|last1=Blackburn \|first2=Leofranc \|last2=Holford-Strevens \|title=The Oxford Companion to the Year \|publisher=Oxford \|year=2003}} A corrected reprinting of the 1999 original edition.
	* {{cite book \|first=Georges \|last=Declercq \|year=2000 \|title=Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Turnhout \|isbn=978-2-503-51050-7}}		* {{cite book \|first=Georges \|last=Declercq \|year=2000 \|title=Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Turnhout \|isbn=978-2-503-51050-7}}
⚫	* {{cite journal \|last=Declercq \|first=G. \|date=2002 \|url=https://www.academia.edu/43960999 \|title=Dionysius Exiguus and the introduction of the Christian era \|journal=Sacris Erudiri \|volume=41 \|pages=165–246\|doi=10.1484/J.SE.2.300491 }}
	* Dionysius Exiguus, ''Patrologia Latina'' '''67''' (works).		* Dionysius Exiguus, ''Patrologia Latina'' '''67''' (works).
	**[https://web.archive.org/web/20190115083618/http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrono/paschata.htm Cyclus Decemnovennalis Dionysii – Nineteen year cycle of Dionysius] (original Easter table – archived)		**[https://web.archive.org/web/20190115083618/http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrono/paschata.htm Cyclus Decemnovennalis Dionysii – Nineteen year cycle of Dionysius] (original Easter table – archived)
	**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface		**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface
	**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]		**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]
⚫	* {{cite journal \|last=Duta \|first=Florian \|title=Des précisions sur la biographie de Denys le Petit \|journal=Revue de droit canonique \|volume=49 \|pages=279–96 \|date=1999 \|lang=fr}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}		* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}		* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}
	* {{cite book \|last=Neugebauer \|first=Otto \|author-link=Otto Neugebauer \|title=Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus \|year=2016 \|orig-year=1979 \|edition=2nd \|publisher=Red Sea Press \|isbn=978-1-56902-440-9}}		* {{cite book \|last=Neugebauer \|first=Otto \|author-link=Otto Neugebauer \|title=Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus \|year=2016 \|orig-year=1979 \|edition=2nd \|publisher=Red Sea Press \|isbn=978-1-56902-440-9}}
⚫	* {{cite news \|first=Nick \|last=Squires \|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121122104227/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html \|archive-date=2012-11-22 \|title=Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope \|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph\|The Telegraph]] \|date=21 November 2012}}
⚫	* {{cite journal \|first=Gustav \|last=Teres \|url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1984jha....15..177t&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES \|title=Time computations and Dionysius Exiguus \|journal=Journal for the History of Astronomy \|volume=15 \|year=1984 \|issue=3 \|pages=177–188\|doi=10.1177/002182868401500302 \|bibcode=1984JHA....15..177T }}
	* {{cite journal \|last=Zuidhoek \|first=Jan \|date=2017 \|title=The initial year of ''De ratione paschali'' and the relevance of its paschal dates \|journal=Studia Traditionis Theologiae \|volume=26 \|pages=71–93\|doi=10.1484/M.STT-EB.5.114734 \|isbn=978-2-503-57709-8 }}		* {{cite journal \|last=Zuidhoek \|first=Jan \|date=2017 \|title=The initial year of ''De ratione paschali'' and the relevance of its paschal dates \|journal=Studia Traditionis Theologiae \|volume=26 \|pages=71–93\|doi=10.1484/M.STT-EB.5.114734 \|isbn=978-2-503-57709-8 }}

			==Further reading==
		⚫	* {{cite journal \|last=Declercq \|first=G. \|date=2002 \|url=https://www.academia.edu/43960999 \|title=Dionysius Exiguus and the introduction of the Christian era \|journal=Sacris Erudiri \|volume=41 \|pages=165–246\|doi=10.1484/J.SE.2.300491 \|ref=none}}
		⚫	* {{cite journal \|last=Duta \|first=Florian \|title=Des précisions sur la biographie de Denys le Petit \|journal=Revue de droit canonique \|volume=49 \|pages=279–96 \|date=1999 \|lang=fr \|ref=none}}
		⚫	* {{cite news \|first=Nick \|last=Squires \|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121122104227/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html \|archive-date=2012-11-22 \|title=Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope \|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph\|The Telegraph]] \|date=21 November 2012 \|ref=none}}
		⚫	* {{cite journal \|first=Gustav \|last=Teres \|url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1984jha....15..177t&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES \|title=Time computations and Dionysius Exiguus \|journal=Journal for the History of Astronomy \|volume=15 \|year=1984 \|issue=3 \|pages=177–188\|doi=10.1177/002182868401500302 \|bibcode=1984JHA....15..177T \|ref=none}}

	==External links==		==External links==

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:24, 27 May 2024
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.		Most of the British Church accepted the Dionysian tables after the [[Synod of Whitby]] in 664, which agreed that the old British method (the ''insular latercus'') should be dropped in favour of the Roman one. Quite a few individual churches and monasteries refused to accept them, the last holdout finally accepting them during the early 10th century. After the first Frankish adaptation of [[Bede]]'s ''The Reckoning of Time'' was published (by 771),{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=163}} the Church of the Franks (France) accepted them during the late 8th century under the tutelage of [[Alcuin]], after he arrived from Britain.

	Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="j">John P. Pratt, [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html "Yet another eclipse for Herod"] ~~originally published in ''~~The Planetarian~~'', vol.~~ 19~~, no.~~ 4, ~~Dec.~~ 1990~~, pp.~~ 8–14. "Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed."</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="j" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>		Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch – [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|190}}) and [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] ({{circa\|lk=no\|320}}) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. The reason for his omission may be simply that the starting date was computationally convenient, or that he did not believe that the date of the Nativity could be pinpointed exactly. Ambiguities arise from the fact that eras may be either elapsed or current years, there are discrepancies in the lists of consuls, and there is disagreement as to whether the Incarnation should be reckoned from the Annunciation or the Nativity. Most scholars have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a [[year zero]]), arguing that because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently, one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March AD 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and [[Nativity of Jesus\|Nativity]] in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables. In either case, Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC. In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian [[Laurentius Suslyga]] was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC,<ref>Marking Time, by Duncan Steel.</ref> deriving this from the chronology of [[Herod the Great]], his son [[Philip the Tetrarch]], and the daughter of [[Augustus]], [[Julia the Elder\|Julia]].<ref>Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West, by Anthony Grafton.</ref> Having read Suslyga's work,<ref>Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem by W. Burke-Gaffney.</ref> [[Johannes Kepler\|Kepler]] noted that Christ was born during the reign of King [[Herod the Great]] ([[Matthew 2:1\|2:1]]–[[Matthew 2:18\|18]]), whose death he placed in 4 BC. Kepler chose this year because [[Josephus]] stated that a [[lunar eclipse]] occurred shortly before Herod's death.<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=558 Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, Paragraph 4.]</ref> John Pratt of the [[International Planetarium Society]] proposed the 29 December 1 BC eclipse as another eclipse.<ref name="j">{{cite journal \|first=John P. \|last=Pratt \|url=http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html \|title=Yet another eclipse for Herod \|journal=The Planetarian \|volume=19 \|number=4 \|date=December 1990 \|pages=8–14 \|quote=Josephus ... not always clear and ... sometimes inconsistent ... states that Herod captured Jerusalem and began to reign in what we would call 37 B.C., and lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death was in 4–3 B.C." "Of the candidates to be Herod's eclipse, the 29 December 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed.}}</ref> According to Josephus, Herod died in the year 4 or 3 BC.<ref name="j" /><ref>Herod died 34 years after the death of Antigonus and 37 years after Herod was made king by the Romans ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=560 ''Ant. Jews'' 17.8.1]). Antigonus died when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=480 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.16.4]). Herod was made king when Caius Domitias Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls (40 BC) ([http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=472 ''Ant. Jews'' 14.14.5]). Both 37 BC minus 34 and 40 BC minus 37 yield 4 or 3 BC. See [[List of Republican Roman Consuls]] for the modern year numbers.</ref>

	Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.		Although Dionysius stated that the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 sanctioned his method of dating Easter, that is only generally true. There was no formal canon – the Council echoed Canon 1 of the first [[Council of Arles]] (314) which had decreed that the [[Christian observance of Passover#Replacement by Easter\|Christian Passover]] be celebrated ''uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem'' (on one day and at one time through all the world) – but added that all "celebrate Pascha at the same time as" the churches of Alexandria and Rome.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:20, 27 May 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:
	Dionysius ignored the existing table used by the Patriarchate of Rome, which was prepared in 457 by [[Victorius of Aquitaine]], complaining that it did not obey [[Alexandria]]n principles, without actually acknowledging their existence. To be sure that his own table was correct, he simply extended a table prepared in Alexandria that had circulated in the west in Latin, but was never used in the west to determine the date of Easter (however, a variant of it was used in the [[Byzantine Empire]], in Greek). The Latin table was prepared by a subordinate of Bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] shortly before Cyril's death in 444. It covered a period of 95 years or five decennovenal (19-year) cycles with years dated in the [[Era of Martyrs\|Diocletian Era]], whose first year was 285 (the modern historical year in progress at Easter). Diocletian years were advantageous because their division by 19 yielded a remainder equal to the year of the decennovenal cycle {{nowrap\|(1–19).}}		Dionysius ignored the existing table used by the Patriarchate of Rome, which was prepared in 457 by [[Victorius of Aquitaine]], complaining that it did not obey [[Alexandria]]n principles, without actually acknowledging their existence. To be sure that his own table was correct, he simply extended a table prepared in Alexandria that had circulated in the west in Latin, but was never used in the west to determine the date of Easter (however, a variant of it was used in the [[Byzantine Empire]], in Greek). The Latin table was prepared by a subordinate of Bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] shortly before Cyril's death in 444. It covered a period of 95 years or five decennovenal (19-year) cycles with years dated in the [[Era of Martyrs\|Diocletian Era]], whose first year was 285 (the modern historical year in progress at Easter). Diocletian years were advantageous because their division by 19 yielded a remainder equal to the year of the decennovenal cycle {{nowrap\|(1–19).}}

	Ultimately, [[Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table]], meanwhile extended from the years 532–626 to the years 532–721,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=152}} must have been adopted at Rome and also have arrived in Britain and Ireland,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=153}} where, however in both cases certainly not before the second quarter of the seventh century,~~<ref>L~~ Holford-Strevens~~, ''The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction'', Oxford (~~2005), p 50~~.</ref>~~ [[Victorius of Aquitaine]]'s lunar limits 16–22 were gradually replaced with Dionysius’ lunar limits 15–21; only then the discord between the churches of Rome and Alexandria regarding the correct date for the celebration of Easter came to an end, and only from then both these authoritative churches used identical tables and hence observed Easter on the same day.		Ultimately, [[Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table]], meanwhile extended from the years 532–626 to the years 532–721,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=152}} must have been adopted at Rome and also have arrived in Britain and Ireland,{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|p=153}} where, however in both cases certainly not before the second quarter of the seventh century,{{sfnp\|Holford-Strevens\|2005\|p=50}} [[Victorius of Aquitaine]]'s lunar limits 16–22 were gradually replaced with Dionysius’ lunar limits 15–21; only then the discord between the churches of Rome and Alexandria regarding the correct date for the celebration of Easter came to an end, and only from then both these authoritative churches used identical tables and hence observed Easter on the same day.

	The Greek tables had begun with the new moon which fell (on 29 August) the day before the starting date of their chronology, which was 30 August 284. The [[epact]] thus calculated was carried over unchanged by Dionysius into his tables together with a number from one to seven, calculated annually, called by the Greeks the "day of the [planetary] gods" and in the west the "concurrent". This number the Greeks used for calculating the day of the week for any date in the [[Coptic calendar\|Alexandrian civil calendar]] (a late form of the [[Egyptian calendar\|Egyptian solar calendar]] which included a final leap day every four years), which involved no more than simple arithmetic because the twelve months ran consecutively and all had thirty days. These two variables were understood neither by Dionysius nor by the other western computists, who were used to working with the age of the moon on 1 January and the Sunday letters to determine the Sundays. This is why the tables took so long to gain acceptance, but the values were eventually assimilated into the theory, the concurrent as the weekday of 24 March and the epact as the age of the moon on 22 March.~~<ref>L~~ Holford – Strevens~~, ''The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction'', Oxford (~~2005), pp 49–51~~.</ref>~~		The Greek tables had begun with the new moon which fell (on 29 August) the day before the starting date of their chronology, which was 30 August 284. The [[epact]] thus calculated was carried over unchanged by Dionysius into his tables together with a number from one to seven, calculated annually, called by the Greeks the "day of the [planetary] gods" and in the west the "concurrent". This number the Greeks used for calculating the day of the week for any date in the [[Coptic calendar\|Alexandrian civil calendar]] (a late form of the [[Egyptian calendar\|Egyptian solar calendar]] which included a final leap day every four years), which involved no more than simple arithmetic because the twelve months ran consecutively and all had thirty days. These two variables were understood neither by Dionysius nor by the other western computists, who were used to working with the age of the moon on 1 January and the Sunday letters to determine the Sundays. This is why the tables took so long to gain acceptance, but the values were eventually assimilated into the theory, the concurrent as the weekday of 24 March and the epact as the age of the moon on 22 March.{{sfnp\|Holford-Strevens\|2005\|pp=49–51}}

	Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table owes its strong structure to his distant predecessor [[Anatolius of Laodicea\|Anatolius]], who invented the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is an application of the [[Metonic cycle]] in the [[Julian calendar]].{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|pp=65-66}} Its lunar cycle is the nearby variant of [[Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria\|Theophilus]]' 19-year lunar cycle proposed by [[Annianus of Alexandria\|Annianus]] and adopted by bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] in the first half of the fifth century.{{sfnp\|Mosshammer\|2008\|pp=202-203}} The Metonic structure of this so-called classical Alexandrian 19-year lunar cycle contained in Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table is reflected by the structure of its 19-year periodic sequence of [[epact]]s.{{sfnp\|Zuidhoek\|2017\|p=87}}		Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table owes its strong structure to his distant predecessor [[Anatolius of Laodicea\|Anatolius]], who invented the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is an application of the [[Metonic cycle]] in the [[Julian calendar]].{{sfnp\|Declercq\|2000\|pp=65-66}} Its lunar cycle is the nearby variant of [[Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria\|Theophilus]]' 19-year lunar cycle proposed by [[Annianus of Alexandria\|Annianus]] and adopted by bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria]] in the first half of the fifth century.{{sfnp\|Mosshammer\|2008\|pp=202-203}} The Metonic structure of this so-called classical Alexandrian 19-year lunar cycle contained in Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table is reflected by the structure of its 19-year periodic sequence of [[epact]]s.{{sfnp\|Zuidhoek\|2017\|p=87}}
Line 104:		Line 104:
	**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface		**[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm On Easter] – with preface
	**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]		**[http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html Liber de Paschate (Latin text)]
			* {{cite book \|first=L. \|last=Holford-Strevens \|title=The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction \|publisher=Oxford \|year=2005}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}		* {{cite book \|first=Charles W. \|last=Jones \|chapter=Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar \|title=Bedae opera de temporibus \|place=Cambridge, Massachusetts \|year=1943 \|pages=1–122}}
	* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}		* {{cite book \|first=Alden A. \|last=Mosshammer \|year=2008 \|title=The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era \|publisher=Oxford \|isbn=978-0-19-954312-0}}