A Conversation for The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Peer Review : A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 1

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

Entry: The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear - A84012040
Author: Dmitri Gheorgheni - U1590784

Yes, yes, yes. I know the title can't stay that way. But I wanted to get your attention, and promising to talk about Germans who argue historical conundra ain't gonna do it. I promise that there is something about Jesus' underwear in this entry. smiley - whistle

Besides, once you guys have done your stuff, Sam and Chris will be free to rename it 'The Phantom Time Hypothesis'. smiley - yawn Honour will be served.

For me, finding a new conspiracy theory is like an apparition of the Easter Bunny, a visit from Santa, and a close encounter of the third kind all rolled into one...

I hope you enjoy this a little bit.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 2

bobstafford

smiley - cool entry It is easy to buy into the idea as the EMA is at best confusing, and what if it was all a figment of someones imagination well.

Wheeze of the week mate,smiley - laugh

Jape of the century smiley - laughsmiley - laugh


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 3

Lanzababy - Guide Editor

smiley - biggrin Hey Dmitri!! I only wish I could write with a quarter of your style and originality of subject matter. I admit to not having enough time this morning to do your Entry justice, but from a quick read-through I think this is going to be another star in the Approved Guide. Long may your contributions keep appearing - they liven the old place up. smiley - ta


Lanzababy smiley - zen


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 4

Lanzababy - Guide Editor

ps I will have time later and will look forward to reading it a little more slowly and thoroughly this evening. smiley - ok


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 5

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

smiley - ok Thanks, Lanzababy.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 6

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

Looks really great...
Well written; I'd gotten to the end before I realised I'd read it... smiley - zen
And, the title Has* to stay! smiley - grovel


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 7

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

smiley - rofl I thought you'd like that title, 2legs.

I have added a footnote on the subject of Charlemagne's tomb. I thought people might want to know what orthodox scholars think about that whole fascinating business. smiley - winkeye


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 8

Merely a number

Dmitri Gheorgheni,

"a corpse found not to have decomposed in about 20 years was ... dealt with accordingly." raises at least as many questions as it answers. But then so does the whole piece.

Maybe that's the main reason I liked and enjoyed it as much as I did.

And I too think you should retain Jesus' underwear in the title. After all, are we to suppose he wore none?

M a n


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 9

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

smiley - laugh Thanks.

I'm not sure about the underwear. I'll try to find out.

My first impulse is to say, he didn't necessarily wear any, because of John 21:7, in which Peter, who was out fish-trawling, was said to be 'gymnos', or 'naked'. Much ink is apparently spilt on whether that meant he was starkers, or had on a tunic. We need to find out about the drawers, though - this could be a fruitful area of inquiry. smiley - whistle

Right now, I was reading a text on Otto III with sentences in it like 'The site‟s spoliating imperative was itself tied to the reification of antique ideals...' smiley - rofl I love this stuff.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 10

Merely a number


" Peter ... was said to be 'gymnos', or 'naked'. Much ink is apparently spilt on whether that meant he was starkers, or had on a tunic. "

See, this is where lots of scollers fowl up. Peter was obviously wearing a gymnos tunic.

The concept of a 'site' possessing an imperative is itself mildly mind boggling. That that imperative be of a spoliating bent comes close to defeating me in the altogether.

Keep up the good whatever.

M a n


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 11

toybox

Fascinating Entry smiley - biggrin

I can't wait to see it included in the Guide. And that's another vote for Keep The Title from me smiley - magic

smiley - ghost


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 12

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

smiley - rofl Obviously, my strategem with the underwear was successful. People are actually reading this discussion of the Early Middle Ages.

Underwear research so far:

The picture from Aachen is not very helpful:

http://www.heiligtumsfahrt2007.de/index79-0.aspx

I'm thinking our best guess is the subligaculum - apparently the standard underwear for 1st-Century men (ladies had bikinis):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subligaculum

The one in the pic was dug up in London. I will not touch that straight line with a ten-foot pole...smiley - run


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 13

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

Someone needs to stop me. I added another footnote.

There's a Danish dendrochronologist who's outraged by this theory. Unfortunately, he can't prove them wrong.

He uses a lot of exclamation points. Poor guy needs to switch to decaf.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 14

Z

This is a lovely theory.

I don't know much about the subject, but I suspect it's probably an interesting theory that is actually not true. Not to say it's not a fun idea. I love conspiracy thoeries, but they are nearly always drek aren't they?

But.. we do need to acknowledge that there are serious problems with this theory and that serious historians don't rate it. I think that needs to be more in the footnotes. I would suggest that you let a serious historian refute it in the main text not in footnotes. There are young people who use h2g2 for their homework, and anyone who w

Montana Redhead - who has a PhD in History, medieval history no less, has commented on the main entry, and I really think you need to integrate her comments.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 15

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

I will gladly interpolate a serious, published refutation, as soon as I find one. (I'm still looking.) The reason I put in the Swedish (sorry, I said Danish before) dendrochronologist was that he was making a serious attempt to refute the theory. He just ran into some problems, and hasn't succeeded yet.

Most of the refutations I've found so far are of the superficially dismissive variety. I'm still hunting for one that answers what the theory *says*, not what they want it to say, and responds accordingly.

Admittedly, my master's degree is in medieval Germanic languages and literatures, which means I spent most of my time reading acknowledged *fiction*, such as wonderful stories about secret societies and imaginary kingdoms, but I think I can sort out the dreck.

The thesis here is not that the theory is provable, but that it exists. I've been reading about solar eclipses most of the day, but haven't found an 'aha!' answer yet. smiley - smiley


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 16

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

Okay, as I assumed the previous crit to be a plea to make sure that somewhere in this entry it was stated that most sane people don't believe in this theory, I made sure that I stated this clearly at the end. smiley - smiley With a link.

You can tell when you're reading arguments about something that would seriously overturn the received version of things. The authors get vituperative.

Reading these discussions, I reflect that I haven't seen so much academic meanness since the Shakespeare Identity people. smiley - laugh Or so many exclamation marks.


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 17

aka Bel - A87832164

Marvellous. smiley - magic

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I had never heard of that theory. smiley - bigeyes


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 18

McKay The Disorganised

Lurve a good conspiracy theory.

smiley - ok

smiley - cider


A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 19

Leo

Hullo:

The Jesus's underwear was cut off in my skin, but phantom time brought me in. In case you're keeping record. But the existence of the fellow's undergarments does intrigue. smiley - biggrin

All that said, it's a fun post with a great voice. Now, for corrections:

Would you be able to take a few question marks out of the intro? Too many questions in a row make me dizzy. It may need a bit of restructuring, but you might decide you like it.

- The Dark Ages:
I thought AD referred to all time after the death of Jesus? Meaning, it would extend from when Jesus expired until now, and not merely refer to the Dark Ages. Moreover, didn't the dark ages start after the fall of the Roman empire, which didn't even adopt Christianity until many years AD?

Here's a paragraph that puzzles me a bit:
>>Heribert Illig first noticed that when the Gregorian calendar was reconciled with the Julian calendar, it was necessary to add 13 days to make up for the fact that the Julian year was actually about ten minutes too short.<<
- When did this occur?

>>These 13 days account for the reason Russian Christmas is later than Western Christmas
- Who didn&#39;t correct their calendar?

>>However, when the Gregorian calendar was reconciled in 1582, only 10 days were added.
- This was how much later than Heribert? And who and why?

>>This accounted for a difference of 1257 years, and would bring the calendar into agreement with 325
- That&#39;s 325 CE? And by difference of 1,257 years, you mean it would correct the missing 13 days for 1,257 year&#39;s worth?

>> which, as detractors of the theory point out, happens to be the date of the Nicene Council, which had so much trouble figuring out when Easter was. The detractors figure that settles that.<<
- Methinks you&#39;re assuming we know too much. I had no idea the Nicene Council didn&#39;t know when Easter was, nor what this has to do with ghostbusting phantom time.

Do you perhaps mean that the correction took place in the year of the Nicene Council, which suggests that they did it? smiley - huh

And then the equinox issue. Would you be able to explain the problem with the placement, instead of merely stating that it&#39;s there? I gather it could be rather complicated - calendars have a tendency to befuddle. But I think it&#39;s worth the effort.


Ah, at any point do you actually state the Phantom Time Hypothesis? As in, "The Phantom Time Hypothesis states that Constantine inserted 267 years into the calendar" or something like that? My neat college-essay mind is bothered by the lack of thesis statement.

One more thing: You mention the Muslim calendar, and you mention Jews, but you don&#39;t mention the Jewish calendar. Jews kept their own calendar and live rather separate from Christian Europe, so it doesn&#39;t seem likely that they&#39;d also insert a couple extra centuries. So I did a drop of googling and found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_years_(Jewish_calendar)



A84012040 - The Phantom Time Hypothesis - Tree Rings and Jesus' Underwear

Post 20

Dmitri Gheorgheni - Freshly Vaccinated

Wow.

Heribert Illig is a contemporary researcher - he's the guy who started this.

1582 is when the Gregorian calendar was worked out. And yes, the Russian Orthodox Church still follows the Julian calendar. They are holdouts, largely due to the fact that Russia did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1918. The Russian Orthodox Church hated the Bolsheviks. This was a political thing. I know someone who, whenever someone says 'It's the first today,' replies, 'No, it isn't.'

The Nicene Council did not, indeed, know when Easter was. They used to ask the Jews when Passover was, then count from there. Some people didn't like this. They ended up celebrating Easter all over the place, so they worked out a formula. The math will give you a headache.

I'll try to get this explanation into a lay-friendlier form. I am trying to explain it without making this entry any longer. If it get much longer, I will remove it, because this is too much text for something that was meant to be amusing.

I'll think about the questions in the intro. I realise that's a lot of questions, but sometimes that opening works. We'll see.

I thought I HAD stated that the Phantom Time Hypothesis is that Otto III - not Constantine - added 297 years (not 267) to the calendar. I'll go back as soon as I have time, and make sure that this is the case. There is also a section of this clarifying what the claims are.

This won't work if we need to examine each aspect of the theory in detail, and then try to refute it. To do that, the entry would expand to at least 5,000-6,000 words. It is already on the brink of too long for my taste. Also, I have no intention of making this entry into either a defence of this theory against all comers, or a stirring justification of the current state of scholarship.

That's a good point about the Jewish calendar. Jewish synagogue records have been known to be missing sections - for example, after 1666, Western count, almost all the synagogues in Western Europe ripped out several years' worth of pages. The reason? They'd been following Sabbatai Zvi, the false Messiah. They were embarassed about it. I don't blame them.

I think what the Phantom Time people are claiming - if I understand them right - is that other people's recording-keeping has got confused, as well, due to collating their records with the West. I may be wrong. The articles I read claimed that Jewish records in the West are conspicuously empty for the period in question.

Oh, the fall of Rome - Gibbons' date is 476. AD.

This doesn't mean *anybody* in 476 AD called it 476 AD. That's why I linked to the guide entries on calendars. Back then, you might have said, 'It was the 14th year of the reign of King Doofus, you know, the one where we had the earthquake,' or you might have said, 'It was the year X after the beginning of the world,' in which case you could pick between the Jewish version or the Byzantine version (though the Phantom Time people think the Byzantine Emperor was in on it).

The Anno Domini system of dating was adopted variously throughout Europe over a period of about 700 years. Unless you believe Heribert Illig and his friends, in which the period was shorter and later. smiley - winkeye

The idea isn't that time went missing. The idea is that they counted wrong. And then invented stuff to fill in the blanks.

What are the consequences? Well, the OTHER people - the ones with longer histories - may not be thinking that what happened in their reckoning coincided with the correct event in Europe. But that doesn't affect their chronologies.

And it would mean that Western Europe's history was shorter than people thought.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more