An Attempt of Reconstruction of the Chronology of Christian Era

In our interpretation of the Daniel’s and John’s prophecies concerning dating of the Last times, we noticed that official historical chronology needs to be revised. Here we are going to do it and also to present our hypothesis of a corrected chronology.  

If you are interested in the modern historical science, you will be told that chronology is an auxiliary historical discipline that sets the dates of historical events and documents. However, this is cunning. There is an alternative definition of chronology as a list of events in their time sequence. This is closer to the truth. Behind this simple definition lies a hard problem. For a long time, up to the XVIII century, chronology was the basis of historical knowledge. Chronology used to find historical events and dated them. The main goal of historians was to find out about some event in the past, to find out when this event was, and to fix them in the form of chronological constructions. Chronology is a historical science of reality, the determination of what really was and when it was.

For centuries, chronologists collected sets of historical events and streamlined them on a timeline. It was important for them to determine what happened in the past. However, starting from the XVII, and especially from the XVIII century, a methodological revolution took place in history. Historians began to describe, interpret, and analyze existing chronological data; they no longer asked questions of what had happened in the past, and whether it had existed at all. They were interested in why it had been or how it had been. History from the science of determining the past turns into the science of interpreting and reconstructing of the past. When a typical ancient historical text was like a chronicle or a table of events, then in the XVIII century it became a narrative or an anecdote. Why this happened is not clear.

If one wants to research the chronology (its basis and history), then he will deal with something like a conspiracy. There are very few books and papers about the chronology. We have hundreds books and thousands papers about Herodotus, but there are only two books and some papers about Scaliger who ultimately formed the modern chronology. About Dionysius Petavius there is not any book. Eusebius of Caesarea is mainly known as a historian of Church, but not a chronograph. The classical chronological books: Chronicon (Eusebius), «Opus novum de emendatione temporum» (Scaliger), etc. still have not been completely translated from ancient languages. Until the era of Internet, the majority of this works was inaccessible for readers. 

The chronology is not popularized; we don’t have any popular books or films. Then there is one more mystery: after the publishing by Dionysius Petavius his “Rationarium temporum” 1636, in the official science nobody has made any ground attempt to revise the chronological basis. Despite the science received a lot of new data, instruments and methods, modern historic science still have been using the theories and models from XV-XVII centuries.

Nevertheless, the Scaliger’s and Petavius chronological model has been criticized from the times of its arising. Critics found many mistakes in the official chronology: astronomical, calendar, factual.  Besides that, in this chronology they found the traces of numerological, astrological and cabbalistic modelling. Nevertheless, the official science ignore this critique.

During the world history, each civilization had its own calendars and calculations of time. Ancient Rome calculated time from the day of the foundation of Rome; ancient Greeks – from the date of the first Olympic games; Byzantium – from the Biblical date of Creation the world; our civilization – from the date of the birth of Christ.

These chronological systems contains many mistakes, purposeful inserts, mythical dates, events and persons which distort (mainly lengthened) the history. During the XVIII-XIX centuries, there was a tremendous progress of natural sciences. Many evidences were accumulated, which suggested that the Scaliger’s chronology is mistaken.

Therefore, modern chronologists must reveal and correct the chronology, but they don’t.

The first criticism of the traditional chronology appeared at the end of the XVII century. French abbot Jean Hardouin suggested that medieval history is based on falsified evidence, and the history of the new era is much shorter. Then in the XIX and XX centuries several alternative scientific schools appeared. The most famous are English (Edwin Johnson, Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot), German (Wilhelm Kammeier, Heribert Illig, Uwe Topper) and Russian (Nikolai Morozov, Anatoly Fomenko).

Many alternative historians have proposed their alternative chronologies. They are different, but each of them has the same thesis: the official chronology of a new era is artificially lengthened, and this prolongation is during the so-called “Dark ages” or “Medieval period”. Alternative historians suggest their own duration of this ghostly era, mainly from 300 to 1000 years.

Thus, this idea gives a new look at the interpretation of the dating of future apocalyptic events in the prophecies of Daniel and John. According to these prophets, the world kingdom of the Beast 666 begins 1260 years after the founding of the Christian church or around 1290 of the Christian era. The end of this satanic state will come 1290 years after the destruction of the Second Temple or around 1360 of the Christian era. The millennial kingdom can begin in 1405 of the Christian era.

After the time of Joachim of Flora, such dates were not relevant, because these dates, it would seem, have already passed. Therefore, subsequent interpreters of these prophecies are forced to avoid direct dating or use complex and incredible interpretations. However, alternative historians and chronologists suggest that today is not 2020 CE, so the dates of the prophecies of Daniel and John (1290-1405 CE) may not have come yet.

What is year of the Christian era (AD) today? That is the question. The scatter of dates given by alternative historians is too great. Restoring the true date of this year is incredibly difficult, but we will try with God’s help.


Our first insight was a suspicious similarity of the two epidemics of plague: Justinian plague (the middle of the VI century) and Black Death (the middle of the XIV century). The historical descriptions of these plagues are so close, we supposed that here we deal with a doubling of the one event. Probably the one plague was doubled and eight centuries were inserted between them.

We decided to use the most precise scientific method of dating – dendrochronology. This method could be precise only when we have enough wooden artifacts. Fortunately, dendrochronologists collected and researched this material in the framework of the large project of Mediterranean dendrochronology.

In the early 70s, archaeologists and dendrochronologists set themselves an ambitious task: since dendrochronology is the most accurate and scientifically objective method of dating, it was decided to create a unified dendrochronology scale using the research of forests, fossil timber and timber of archaeological excavations until the Neolith period of 7 thousand years BC.

Moreover, this dendrochronological scale of the entire history of mankind was planned to be created for the Mediterranean region – the richest with cultural and archaeological artefacts region. During 40 years, a huge amount of work has been done, a lot of material has been collected, but it was not possible to create a single dendrochronological scale. On the one hand, it was possible, based on the study of oak rings, to create a reliable absolute scale from the XX to the XI century. This was possible due to the large number of old trees. Some of which reached the age of 1000 years. On the other hand, many long and short relative scales were created on the basis of various tree species that date different periods of history – see Graph 1.

However, all attempts to combine these relative scales into the one single absolute scale were failed. The official scientific explanation for this problem is that there is little material. However, it is strange – the material for many relative scales allegedly even 7000 BC was found, but the material for the second half of the first millennium AD for some reason was not found. And it is despite the fact that the region is full of archaeological excavations and artifacts, including wooden ones.

What are the main results of the forty years of work of a dozen advanced scientists from around the world to restore the dendrochronological scale of the Mediterranean Sea region?

These results are presented in two articles:

1) Carol Griggs, Arthur DeGaetano, Peter Kuniholm and Maryanne Newton «A regional high-frequency reconstruction of May–June precipitation in the north Aegean from oak tree rings, A.D. 1089–1989»;

and an article 2) Charlotte L. Pearson, Carol B. Griggs a, Peter I. Kuniholm, Peter W. Brewer, Tomasz Wazny, LeAnn Canady «Dendroarchaeology of the mid-first millennium AD in Constantinople»

The first article presents their results as the Mediterranean absolute (oak) dendrochronology scale (MADS) and the table of extrema by years. See Graph No. 2

Graphs shows the deviation from a certain average width of the annual ring of oak in the Mediterranean depending on weather conditions – in dry years the rings are narrower, in wet years are wider. At the top there are two graphs of the same rows of rings, calculated by two different methods. Below is a table showing the years with the widest or narrowest rings determined by both methods (in our work, we will compare all these peak data).

The second article presents the results of dendrochronological analysis of wood found during excavation in time of the construction of the new Marmaray metro line in Constantinople since 2004, as well as excavations in the churches of St. Sophia and St. Irina.

About 2000 wooden samples were found, 286 of which were identified and attributed by the places of the ancient docks conventionally named (percentages indicate a part of the samples found in a particular dock) Marmaray Iskele 1 – 50%; Metro Iskele 3 – 31%; Marmaray Iskele 3 – 21%; Metro Iskele 24 – 2%. A separate dendrochronological scale was created from the samples of each of these docks, as well as from the samples found in the churches of St. Sophia and St. Irina, see Graph No. 3.

The authors of the article argue that these scales correlate very well with each other and coincide both dendrochronologicaly and according to radiocarbon analysis. In addition, since the exact date of the construction of St. Sophia cathedral is allegedly known, the indicated scales can be accurately dated to the absolute scale by the V-VI centuries AD. The authors also combined all the scales from material of the docks and churches into the one summary scale of the Constantinople relative dendrochronology of oak (CRDO), see Graph No. 4.

The upper graph shows the mentioned CRDO scale (black). Above, for comparison, a scale based on the timber from the Romanian Capidava is shown. In addition, they tried to put this scale on the supposed absolute scale for Mediterranean oak (gray). In fact, as already mentioned above – a reliable absolute scale for Mediterranean oak exists only until the 11th century, and everything else is only speculative models.

The authors of the article estimate the results of their work as success; they argue that this is a big step towards creating a reliable absolute dendrochronological scale. However this statement is doubtful: they still need to find wood to fill a 500-year gap (600-1100 AD) in absolute chronology. In addition, the CRDO scale does not have even a hint on a big geological and climatic catastrophe of 536-542 AD, which is on dendrochronological scales from the other regions of the world. The authors try to explain this problem by the specific microclimate of the region, but such explanation looks inconclusive.

In our opinion, the results presented in these articles are very valuable historical data, although in a completely different, unexpected context for their authors.

Analyzing the charts presented in the articles, we found that the Constantinople CRDO chart, dating from 398-610 AD, strikingly resembles a segment of the scale of the Mediterranean absolute oak dendrochronology (MADS) 1198-1410 AD. See Graph No.5

Although the quality of our image is low (in order to make high-quality graphics in a special dendrochronological program, we need basic data, to which we have not yet found open access), it shows a good similarity between the graphs of the CRDO of 398-610 AD and the MADS of 1198-1410 AD. The graphs presented in the articles 1 and 2 are made at a high level; the CRDO graphs have an accurate timeline with a scale division value of 1 year. The table of extrema by years is attached to the MADS graphs (see graph No. 2), which on these segments gives 14 control time-points relevant to the width of the rings (maxima or minima). This allows us to determine the compatibility of CRDO and MADS graphs accurately.

So, the first large minimum, (corresponding to a very dry year) according to the Mediterranean absolute dendrochronology of oak (MADS), the authors indicate as 1204 AD. According to the Constantinople relative oak dendrochronology (CRDO), this large minimum period is at the very beginning of the scale and it is indicated by the chronology compiled from the timber found in the excavations of the only Byzantine dock with the name Metro Iskele 3. It is dated as a dry period of 402-407 AD (4-9 year on a graph No. 3 with a relative scale) with a bottom of a minimum of 406 AD (8 year on a graph No. 3). Since chronologies from other docks and excavation places could not be created before that period, the accuracy in this case is low. The difference between the MADS absolute scale and the relative CRDO scale is (if we take the average year of the minimum period) 1204-(402 + 407)/2 = 799.5 years.
The next is large maximum of MADS is 1209 AD. CRDO has only the Metro Iskele 3 scale and also shows a maximum of 410 AD (12 year on a graph No. 3), but there are also two intermediate highs of 408 AD (10 year on a graph No. 3) and 409 AD (11 year on a graph No. 3), after a minimum of 406 AD. Here is the difference of 799 years, but the data also allow interpretation the differences of 800 and 801 years.
The next is the period of the maximums of the MADS 1212-1219 AD. Metro Iskele 3 gives a 411 AD (13 year on a graph No. 3) minimum, then a maximum of 414 AD (16 year on a graph No. 3) and after two years in 416 AD (18 year on a graph No. 3) it shows a large maximum, after which two more years later there is a lower maximum in 418 AD (20 year on a graph No. 3). And finally, the graph from the excavations from St. Sofia gives its first maximum of 419 AD (21 year on a graph No. 3). Totally we have a difference of 798-800 years, or an average of 799 years.
The next is minimum MADS is 1228-1229 AD. CRDO shows that, based on the Metro Iskele 3 scale, during this period the local maximum should be 427-428 AD (29-30 year on a graph No. 3), and the local minimum was two years earlier. The wood of the excavations from St. Sophia, in the same year, on the contrary, shows a local minimum. Here we probably have a certain shift of the scale – because of little material the accuracy is still small. If we count according to St. Sofia data, we have a difference of 801 years.
Similarly, the maximum of MADS of 1231 AD. Metro Iskele 3 shows a maximum of 430 AD (32 year on a graph No. 3). Whereas the Sofia scale is at this time in the transition from maximum to minimum, if we count according to the Metro Iskele 3 scale data, we have a difference of 801 years.

Then we have a minimum of 1237 AD MADS. Four dendrochronological scales are already accessible in CRDO, and we are starting to look at the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4), which increase accuracy. CRDO shows a minimum of 436 AD. The difference is 801 years.
The next maximum MADS is 1249 AD. On the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4), we see a minimum of 448 AD, and a maximum of 449 AD. Total difference is 800 years.
Then we have a minimum of 1253 AD MADS. On the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4), which already includes all 7 scales calculated from all excavations, (and accordingly, the accuracy is the best), we see minimum dated as 452 AD. The difference is 801 years.
The next is a big minimum of 1304 AD MADS. On the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4), there is also a big minimum of 503 AD. The difference is 801 years.
The next is another big minimum of 1333 AD MADS. On the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4) we see minimum 532 AD. The difference is 801 years.
Then a big maximum MADS 1341-42 AD. On the final summarized CRDO scale (graph No. 4) is also a big maximum of 539-40 AD. Difference is 802 years.
Then there is a big period of a minimum MADS with a “bottom” of 1362 AD. Some scales go to their end, and we come back to the graphs with the relative CRDO scale (graph No. 3), and we see, although not so big but also a long period of a minimum of about 561 AD (163 year on a graph No. 3). The difference is approximately 801 years.
The next is Maximum from MADS 1372-1374 AD. The only case when the scale position does not coincide with the CRDO scale. Instead of a maximum there is a rather long period of average (neither highs and nor lows) values.
Finally minimum MADS 1401 AD. For this period, only the Marmaray Iskele 1 scale remained in the CRDO (graph No. 3), and it shows a minimum of 599 AD (201 year on a graph No. 3), and the difference is 802 years, but this is the end of the scale and the accuracy decreases.

In total, over 200 years of comparison on scales, we have good visual similarity and good coincidence in significant highs and lows. From the 14 extreme points of the Mediterranean absolute dendrochronology scale of oak (MADS), which were determined by its authors: in 7 cases we have a coincidence with the scale of the Constantinople relative dendrochronology of oak (CRDO) with a gap of 801 years, 1 case with a gap of 800 years, 2 cases with a gap of 802 years, 1 case with a gap of 799 years, 2 cases with a gap of average 799 years and once without a clear coincidence. Almost all the maximum and minimum peak points and periods of the MADS coincide with those on the CRDO scale and in only one case it was a serious mismatch.
It should also be added that during the period 430-532 AD (6 extrema points), most of the CRDO scales from different excavation sites duplicate each other, which means that the accuracy of the chronology is the best. So, during this period 5 control points (from the whole amount 6), shows a gap of 801 years.
In addition, the greatest accuracy is shown in the center of the CRDO scale – where the most material was taken for the calculations. At the beginning of the CRDO scale, on the left from its center we have a three-fold repeating deviation, expressed in reducing the gapfrom 801 till 799 years. And closer to the end of the scale, to the right of the center, we have a twice-repeated deviation in the form of an increase of the gap from 801 till 802 years. Such a distribution of deviations on the edges of the CRDO scale, (where the amount of material is much less than in the center), is a typical example of a statistical spread of deviations.
So, we conclude that, based on the total data of excavations in Constantinople during the construction of the metro and on comparing them with the dendrochronology of the second millennium AD for oak in the Mediterranean region, it could be clear that the relative dendrochronology officially dated as V-VI centuries AD, very good correlates with the dendrochronology of XIII-XIV centuries AD, with a gap of 801 years.

This result was rather strange for us. We find the probable chronological time lag of 801 year. Not the round number 800 but 801. We were a little embarrassed, but our subsequent researches unveiled many scientific surprises concerning this mysterious chronological number 801.


The modern history science has a real father, who, unfortunately, is known by few professional historians. His name is not Herodotus but Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea (260-340). In general, this name is known, but everyone who knows about it, as a rule, knows it from one side, but as a rule, one does not have a general picture. Most likely, we are dealing with a scientific school, or “Think tank”, which was headed by Eusebius. There were very serious forces behind this “Think tank”, because the influence of Eusebius on our understanding of the past is enormous. Eusebius is known as an organizer of science, theologian, and Church historian. However, the least known, but the most influential on our worldview and world historical science is Eusebius the chronologist. Eusebius is considered the author of the largest work on the chronology of the world history.

What he did. He collected all the books about the history of different countries and events available to him and superimposed them on the one timeline. In fact, Eusebius for the first time created a single picture of world history from the beginning of the world to the end of the III century AD. This book is called the Chronicon or the Chronicle and it is a thick codex with hundreds of pages. Eusebius dated and attached to the understandable for us chronological system the history of all the ancient countries and kings known to him. The fact that some king of Assyria or a Greek tyrant reigned in a particular year (not 500 years earlier or later) we know because Eusebius calculated this. All official chronologists after him, up to nowadays, were based on Eusebius and did not hide it. Each of Medieval, Renaissance or Modern book about the world history or chronicle is based or at least use Eusebius’s Chronikon. The most important chronologists like Palmieri, Scaliger or Petavius based their works on the Eusebius’s scheme. Of course, Chronicon has been clarified and supplemented, but not radically. If the facts contradicted Eusebius’s scheme, then they were either ignored or adapted to his scheme.

Let us dwell on this work in more detail. It contains a bunch of revolutionary innovations, which are used up to nowadays.

1.         He was one of the first to publish a secular book not as a scroll, but as a stitched codex.

2.         He designed his chronicle in the form of a complex table. The table format made copying of the book more difficult, but this format easily shows errors in coping.

3.         He abandoned the use of the count of years from Creation of the World and established an era “from Abraham”. Allegedly, there were disputes about the date of Creation of the world, and he decided to avoid them, although he suggested his own version of the date of creation (the birth of Jesus took place in 5199 after Creation of the world), though he did not include it into the table, leaving it only in the introduction to Chronicon.

Behind all this grandeur and influence of Eusebius there is an even greater pile of problems, questions and riddles.


Against this favorable background, the Chronicle of Eusebius reveals many oddities. Despite popularity and authority of the Eusebius’s work, the original did not survive, and it is suspiciously. Only fragments and translations persisted. In particular the table of Eusebius in Latin translation by Jerome exists, but without an introductory part. There are the introductory part in Greek from the chronicle of George Synkellos, and a number of small passages from other authors. We have also manuscripts of Armenian and Syrian translations found in the late XVIII and early XX centuries. The idea to restore the original text of Eusebius is one of the most important scientific problem. So even Scaliger suggested his version of the reconstruction of the Chronicle and published it.
The discrepancy between Eusebius’s dating of the events of the beginning of Christianity, namely Christmas and Easter, to the known variants of their calculation. In the early Christianity, there were several versions of Easter Computus, that is, mathematical models for calculating the dates of Easter. However, the dating of Eusebius is not suitable for any of the known calculations. Moreover, tradition says that Eusebius was a well-known Easter computist. There is an evidence that Eusebius himself wrote a special work on calculating the date of Easter, and very well knew this topic. Such negligence in such a key matter for Christian chronology as dating of the Passion of the Lord is very strange.
Eusebius ignores Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, he does not mention it, and his dating of the beginning of the construction of the Second Temple and the Crucifixion of Christ not consistent with the prophecy. Eusebius writes a rather unexpected thing: “I warn and advise everyone from the start, that no-one should ever pretend that he can be completely certain about matters of chronology. It will help if first we remember the advice of our true master, who told his companions “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1: 7). He, as our Lord and God, uttered this saying not only about the end of the world, but also, in my opinion, about all dates, to dissuade men from such pointless investigations. Indeed, my own words here will confirm this saying of our master, [by showing] that it is not possible to gain an accurate knowledge of the whole chronology of the world from the Greeks, or from any others, not even from the Hebrews themselves”.
Firstly, Christ spoke of the concealment of the date of only the Second Coming and the end of the world. All other dates of the world chronology from Creation to the Last Times are in the Bible. There are discrepancies between the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text regarding certain dates, but these discrepancies are the results of a human activity that distorted the text of Scripture. And secondly, if the chronology cannot be determined – why did Eusebius take on it then?
Such opinions for the Christian bishop of III-IV centuries, when there were discussions between Christians and Jews on the dating of Messiah by Daniel and between Christians and Gentiles concerning the length of world history, are rather surprising.
It should be mentioned the VI century Byzantine historian John Malalas. If Eusebius is considered by modern science to be the most authoritative historian of early Byzantium, then Malalas, on the contrary, is the most despised.
Malalas, a Justinian administration official, wrote a chronicle of ancient history. It is not so concise and harmonious as that of Eusebius. He does not create tables; he simultaneously uses several chronological systems. It is more difficult to understand than the Eusebius’ Chronicon. However, the complexity of Malala’s text revealed to us a lot of valuable information.
We have many manuscripts and translations of the Chronicle of Malala in Greek, Latin and Slavic. And comparing these texts, historians noticed that they differ in the dating of the basic elements of the chronicle, namely in the date of the beginning of the era. Malalas begins his era “from the Creation of the world” (Anno Mundi or AM). At the time of Malalas, several versions of this era were popular, but they were all close to dating of the Incarnation of approximately 5500 AM. And in Greek manuscripts, the same era is given by Malalas. But in Slavic and Latin manuscripts it looks differently. Someone falsified the Greek text in one way, and the Slavic and Latin in another. In addition, the complex structure of the text led to the fact that the falsifiers made a number of mistakes. As a result, it was possible to restore some important points in Malala’s text, primarily to restore his era. Malalas authentically dates Incarnation as 5967 AM, and the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ as 6000 AM. Among ancient chronographs, only Malala and his contemporary, Hesychius of Miletus, use a similar era.
In that time it was the tendency to establish round dates, especially when they were associated with such a symbolic number as 6000, so it is strange that no one except Malala and Hesychius used something similar. Or maybe they used it, but we don’t know about it?
The most interesting thing is that Malala, arguing against the shorter era 5500 AM, writes that Eusebius used the same long era of about 6000 AM! Moreover, Malalas even represents the era of Eusebius. Unfortunately, this place in Malalas’ text is very roughly falsified by later scribes and correctors, and we do not know what Malala wrote there initially, but certainly, according to Malala, Eusebius used a much longer era than 5199 AM, closer to 6000 AM.
Such a scatter of data on Eusebius forced some modern chronologists to admit that in ancient times there were different versions of the Eusebius Chronicle, with different eras, but strangely, today we have only one version of it.

But let’s come back to the era of Eusebius 5199 AM. Russian researcher Lopatin, exploring the chronology of Scaliger (the main modern chronologist), which is based on Eusebius, noted that the dates of Scaliger system are often computed with the help of numerology and Kabbalah.

It is observed, the Scaliger’s chronology of Middle Ages contains iterated fictional events and persons, arranged by numerological principles. Here we cite Lopatin’s book “The Matrix of Scaliger”:

+++The father of the generally accepted version of the historical chronology is the French scientist Joseph Bordoni, better known as Joseph Juste de Scaliger (1540-1609), who at the end of the XVI century published the so-called „chronological tables“, where the scientist outlined the entire world history in dates. Before him, a complete chronological picture (from the Creation of the world till the XVI century) did not existed; he was the first to place all historical events on a single timeline (probably, his nickname comes from „scale“).

Scaliger was „a mathematician and astronomer“, which in terms of that time meant „a numerologist and an astrologer“. He was calculating the past, as well as calculating the future. In fact, for occultists there is no difference between the past and the future. In fact, for occultists there is no difference between the past and the future. Events take place according to some divine plan, their occurrence is natural, they are predetermined, – but some have already passed, and others still have not. A contemporary of Michel Nostradamus who predicted the future, Scaliger just „predicted the past“. Thanks to Scaliger, we know much about events and persons of Medieval and partly Ancient history, but in reality, most of them have never existed.

Later researchers of history (up to modern ones) often noticed the recurrence of similar events, which gave them reason to talk about the cyclical nature of the historical process. Some of them seriously develop the theory of spiral development of history. However, there is no mysticism here, and iterations are just the result of the work of Scaliger and his followers, for whom the cyclical history was the part of their cabalistic worldview.

On what basis did Joseph Scaliger, historian and warlock, design the chronology? How did he use his numerological knowledge?

It is believed that Scaliger became interested in the problems of chronology, having read the book by his senior contemporary Jean Boden „Method for the easy comprehension of history“. Boden straightforwardly demonstrated the simple and obvious essence of the historical process, which is based on two things – cyclicity and numerology. He expressed the main idea in one sentence: „No system seems to me to be easier than to base the cycle in some way upon numbers, taking the beginning from the origin of each empire (which Ptolemy called “epoch” and Alfonso “era,” that is, “root” in Spanish), as in a fever we are accustomed to predict health or the crisis from decisive days, so that if several fall ill at different times, one and the same day may be healthful to some, while to others it may indicate the end (yet sometimes such is the strength of the stars and of their baneful trajection that without distinction of days it affects several at one and the same time)”.

And then he deciphers his theory: „From Waramund to Caper there were 567 years. This number is obtained from the square of nine multiplied by seven. Again from Waramund to Hugh the Great and the abandonment of Louis IV by the nobles and his captivity, the years are 512, a solid cube. Hence to that other case of treason, of Charles of Bourbon to Francis and his captivity, the time elapsed is the square of twice twelve, that is, 576. The same number of years also is counted from Capet to that accursed and appalling war which recently was waged in the blood of citizens. Nor are there more or fewer from the captivity of Charles, duke of Lorraine (by Capet forced from the legitimate line of succession into a prison at Orleans) to Charles that other Lorrainer…

Numerology is based on Kabbalistic teaching, according to which numbers rule the world. Numbers are everywhere, even in words. In most old alphabets, letters also have numerical values, so it’s enough to put the numerals corresponding to them instead of letters in a word, and then add them together to get a number that represents the true essence of the word. The main Kabbalistic number range is numbers from 1 to 9. Nine is the main number. It symbolizes complete perfection, as it includes all the numbers of the range, and is also the number of initiation into the secret of the universe. Where can we find this perfect number? Where the creators of the chronology left their traces? – in dates.

In order to understand the Kabbalistic essence of a multi-digit number, it is necessary to reduce it to one of the numbers of the main range. This is done according to the rule of numerological addition, according to which it is necessary to add up all the numerals of a given number until there will already be nothing to add. For example, let’s take the date of the death of Michel Nostradamus – 1566. 1 + 5 + 6 + 6 = 18, 1 + 8 = 9. Let’s look at the date of his birth, 1503. Let’s add up the numbers for this date. We also get 9. This, of course, is interesting, but more importantly there is another problem. We are talking about cyclicality, that is, not about the dates themselves, but about the chronological intervals between them. 63 years have passed between the birth and death of Nostradamus: 6 + 3 = 9.

We will see the same at Boden: „From the founding of the city to the flight of the kings, the years are 243; from the flight to the parricide, 468; from the flight to the secession of the plebs to the Sacred Mount, 18 years; to the second, 63; to the third, 225; to the sedition of the Gracchi, 378; from this to the Marian Civil War, 45…

All numbers listed here are the numerological equivalents of the nine. The nine in the occult sciences is a complete way, from beginning to end, from birth to death and, further, from death to rebirth. This is a mystical circle of life, a complete cycle. This is a full circle of 360 degrees (3 + 6 + 0 = 9). This is the nine which Scaliger and his followers used in a chronological calculations, creating a cyclical history. Michel Nostradamus was initiated into the mystery, and therefore later chronologists attributed to him these “magic” dates of life. But it was also no coincidence that the release date of the aforementioned book of Jean Boden was taken 1566 – the numerological equivalent of nine and also the year of the death of Nostradamus. This number 1566 itself is also decomposed into two symbolic numbers – 900 and 666. The result of the Kabbalistic approach to writing history is obvious.

The chief chronologist Scaliger did not compile a knowledge of the past of mankind, but a magical quirk. One can often hear the opinion that the “new chronologists” shorted the past, deprived people of history, etc. In fact, it is the Scaliger and his followers who destroyed a single common history, dismembered its living flesh and dragged parts of this corpse over different centuries and millennia.+++

So, many Scaliger’s dating connected with the cabbalistic number 9. In order to get a symbolic era of 6000, you need to the era of Eusebius 5199 add the number 801: 5199 + 801 = 6000. Moreover, the number 801 is very complicated and numerologicaly significant. Firstly, 8 + 0 + 1 = 9, the nine of “complete perfection”. Secondly, one of the names of Christ the God, as He calls Himself: “I am alpha and omega”. Alpha – α in Greek also means the number 1, and omega – ω means the number 800. The gematria of this name is 800 + 1 = 801.

As we see, a numerologist has worked with the era of Eusebius. But for Eusebius, a Christian bishop and theologian of the III-IV centuries, usage of a numerology and Kabbalah is very strange and atypical.

Our reader must have already paid attention on words like atypical, strange, suspiciously, etc., concerning the Eusebian chronology. But there was an époque in European history when to use Kabbalah, to ignore the Bible, to distort history, and to forge ancient documents was both typical and even fashionable. This is the époque of the Renaissance and Early Modern.
We do not have direct evidences, but for many indirect signs, we could introduce the following picture.

Either the Chronicle of Eusebius was initially based on the era of 6000 AM (this is why Malalas takes Eusebius to his allies). Then, someone forged Chronicon including changing the era to 5199 AM, (6000-801=5199). As a result, all events before a certain time-point began to be computed based on the era of 5199 AM, and all events after that continued to be computed based on the era of 6000. Eusebius or “Eusebius” counts his years in the tables “from Abraham”, and it is easy to falsify the era from the Creation of the world, – you just need to change a couple of lines in the introduction to the Chronikon, where Eusebius gives his calculation of the years “from Adam to Abraham”.

Or, in a certain time-point the number 801 was added to the initial era of Eusebius 5199. As a result, all events from this time-point moved back into the past for 801 years.  

And then, in order to completely confuse everyone, the era from the Birth of Christ (CE, AD) replaced the era from the Creation of the world (AM). The segment of 801 years was filled with fictional events and characters, or real events were scattered at longer interval. The fact that there is little data on these 801 years and they are contradictory is argued by the fact that it was the era of “darkness and obscurantism,” that is, the Middle Ages.

So, today may be not 2020 AD but 1219 AD.

We do not precisely know who, when and where distorted the chronology and forged the history of “Middle Ages”. However some evidences suggest, that distortion and forgery of history were started by Popes by hands of Benedictines in the most terrible and incomprehensible century of the world history – in the XIV century, and completed by hands of Renaissance kabbalists like Scaliger in the XV-XVI centuries.

At the end of this article, we would like to answer a logical question: “Well, well, they lengthened the history. But why?”
This is actually one of the most difficult questions for all traditional chronologists. Most of them answer it in two ways. On the one hand, they say that Scaliger and Co. made mistakes, and on the other, they say that it was done intentionally to please political interests.
However, our interpreting of the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse of John made us seriously address this issue. These prophecies contain an accurate dating of the events of the Last times. It is not about the End of the World. We do not it know. But it is about the events that preceded the End of the World and the Second Coming: namely, the kingdom of the Beast of the Apocalypse 666 and the Millennial Kingdom.
However, the popular Christian interpretations of these dates are so disgusting and strained that we began to delve into this issue ourselves. And without much difficulty, we identified that the Last Times should begin, according to Daniel and John, around 1290 AD, and finished in 1360 AD. But today is 2020 AD. It turns out that the prophets were mistaken or today is not 2020 AD, but early than 1290 AD.

So, the motive for prolongation of the history by the Vatican’s heretics and Luciferians was simple. They chose a period of eight centuries precisely because this gap throws back into the past (the end of the XIV – the middle of the XV century) the fulfillment of the prophecies of John and Daniel. When the popes moved from Avignon to Rome at the end of the XIV century, the prophecies of John and Daniel “had been already in the past” and they either could be considered unfulfilled, or need to invent some implausible and foolish interpretations, and Christianity has been spoon-feeding by these fables till nowadays.

The presented above investigation of the chronological distortion enable us to put forward a hypothesis of the “medieval” time gap of 801 years, and this gap is put in the chronological scale between the middle of the VI and the middle of the XIV centuries.  It helps us correctly to interpret Daniel’s and John’s apocalyptic dates.

However, this is only a hypothesis. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough data and straight evidences to establish a valid theory. We have no doubts that our direction of revision of the official chronology is right, but we are not 100 % sure, that our model of revision is right. Probably you will be able to corroborate our hypothesis or to put forward your own hypothesis or theory.