Talk:Byzantine calendar

Untitled
Derived with permission from Byzantine Creation Era at OrthodoxWiki as it existed on March 25, 2009. OrthodoxWiki copyright policy changed on November 22, 2005 to be compatible with Wikipedia. The version of the page this article is derived from was created after that date. Virtually all of its content was created by Angellight 888.

Calendrical correspondence charts
As the article notes, the so-called "Byzantine calendar" is a calendar traditionally used by Eastern Orthodox Christians. One finds this usage currently as well - cf. for instance the website on "Orthodoxy in China" -. In addition, plotting the correspondence of dates with the standard C.E. calendar would be a supremely useful tool for a historian, since, at least in Byzantine, Russian, Romanian et.al. history the "year of creation" dates continued to be widely used at least to late 17th century. For this reason, I would like to request that this dating system be placed into the calendrical correspondence charts which are provided for each article dealing with a given year. Thank you. 140.180.139.102 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am copying your request to Template talk:M1YearInTopic. However, I do not see any use of AM years in the citation after a cursory check. — Joe Kress 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a mistake in the "Key dates according to the Byzantine era", and actually in all the years BC/BCE? The correspondences given would mean that year 5508 of the Byzantine Calendar = year 0 of our common calendar, but there is no such year: the year 1 BCE (BC) is followed directly by the year 1 CE (AD). I think the difference between the two calendars is 5508 years only in the years of CE, but 5507 years when the years BCE are concerned; consequently, the whole article should begin with the equivalence 1 AM = 5508 BC/BCE, not 5509! -- Jouko Lindstedt

Question
Why the birth of Jesus Christ in Byzantine calendar is placed in the Gregorian calendar in 6 BC ? Maybe Should be in 0 BC ? --ΩΑΡ (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the death of King Herod the Great was about 4 BC and he was responsible for the Massacre of the Innocents in his attempt to kill Jesus as an infant, one modern estimate of the birth of Jesus is 6 BC. However, many estimates of the year of the Nativity exist, ranging from 8 BC to AD 9, so I don't think his birth should even be mentioned in a list of otherwise precise dates. I am not aware of any traditional Nativity date in the Byzantine calendar—but a date of AD 9 is well attested in the Alexandrian era invented by the Alexandrian monk Annianus at the beginning of the 4th century which was used by many Byzantine clerics (Maximus the Confessor, George Syncellus, Theophanes the Confessor) from the 7th to the 9th centuries immediately before the Byzantine Empire adopted the Byzantine calendar in the late 10th century. An Incarnation in AD 9 is indeed the first year of the Ethiopian calendar for this reason. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation
I recommend that this entire article is either amalgamated, or entirely replaced by the article of the same subject over at OrthodxWiki, which gives much more detail and is heavily documented:
 * Byzantine Creation Era at OrthodoxWiki. 216.254.167.221 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. 216.254.167.49 (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the article Etos Kosmou be merged into this article (Byzantine calendar), because it is precisely the same subject, and the term "Etos Kosmou" is basically the Greek rendition for "World Era", which is identified already in this article. It will make the overall product and subject coverage stronger. I have added the appropriate tags in both articles. Would appreciate any ideas/feedback. One point however, is that the Etos Kosmou article has already received some ratings on its Talk page. If the article is merged here into Byzantine calendar, I presume the assessments will have to be redone for those listed projects/categories, in the re-worked page here. The reason for moving Etos Kosmou here, and not vice versa, is that this article (Byzantine calendar) currently contains much more information, references, sources and work, and the information on Etos Kosmou can be assimilated relatively easily; also, the term "Byzantine calendar" is known much better (in the English speaking world). Cheers, 216.254.167.49 (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2 Suggestions for Improvment
1. Byzantine Eschatological Thought / Millennialist Expectations. This is an aspect of the calendar that I think ought to be mentioned briefly in the article as well. A discussion of this subject can be found in: Paul Magdalino. The Year 1000 in Byzantium. Byzantium in the year 1000. pp. 233-271.

Magdalino writes that the historian A. Vasiliev raised the subject of Byzantine eschatology for the first time, only to dismiss it again in his article in the 1940's; but subsequent evidence has signalled the importance of the first Chrisitan millenium to Byzantines, the dates of which they projected in their history. Just some of the many dates Magdalino provides as examples of the Byzantine mindset around the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries include: The point to be made here for the purposes of this article, is that the Byzantine culture and mindset was one (as was similarly the case in the Middle Ages in the rest of Europe), which projected apocalyptic and key events from the Scriptures onto their history, using (in their case) the Byzantine calendar as the measure "from the foundation of the world", (a phrase by the way that occurs repeatedly in the New Testament).
 * 6533 AM (1025 AD) - was the conventianal Byzantine date for the millenium anniversary of the Resurrection.
 * 6500 AM (992 AD) - some forecasts expected the end to occur in 6500 AM, the half-point of the 7th millenium.
 * 6388 AM (880 AD) - was significant because it was 888 years from the Incarnation.
 * 6200 AM (692 AD) - not only the Council in Trullo took place, but also the building of the Dome of the Rock, and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, with a prophecy of the last emperor.

Additionally, there were apocalyptic forecasts towards the end of the seventh millenium (7000 AM = 1492 AD) in Moscow that should be mentioned; the Byzantine Empire had already been conquered in 1453 AD only 39 years earlier, adding to the anxiety in Moscow as the year 7000 AM approached.

2. Lunisolar or Solar? I think there should be more details written in the article about the mechanics/specifics of the Byzantine calendar itself. On the one hand, the 19-year lunar metonic cycle was a factor considered in its initial development, yes; however, on the other hand, in its yearly, monthly and daily usage it is stated that the calendar was identical to the Julian calendar, which (as I understand it) was predominantly a Solar-based calendar.

SO, from what I can gather, although the lunar cycle was an important factor in the development of the calendar, nevertheless in its actual usage it was like the Julian (Solar-based) calendar; correct? (unless there is evidence that shows that the calendar was used like the Jewish calendar, a Lunisolar calendar that did depend upon the movements of the moon in its actual usage).

Furthermore, the following statement is given in Magdalino's book (cited above), which may be mentioned in the article describing the Byzantine calendar: "Geological time was unknown, and the astronomical time-scale of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks was categorically rejected" (according to the primary source account of George Syncellos, cited in Magdalino, above, p.239). Any feedback to either of the two areas would be appreciated.:) ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I cannot discuss the millennial aspects. The differences between the solar Byzantine calendar and the solar Julian calendar are already given in the article. The lunar calendar attached to the solar Byzantine calendar was identical to the lunar calendar attached to the Julian calendar, briefly discussed at Computus, meaning the Paschal full moons (Nisan 14) were on the same dates. Hence the Byzantine Easter was identical to the Julian Easter. However, the specific techniques used to obtain these full moon dates and their days of the week in order to determine the next Sunday differed. But I have not studied the Byzantine method in detail. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More feedback
Ok, someone here requested feedback, so here's mho; this article suffers from quite a few problems. Here's some of them:
 * 1) The intro is vastly too long. An intro section should be, at most, four paragraphs. Merge 90% of this stuff with the body of the article, or just delete it.
 * 2) There is far too much usage of "calenderical" jargon (I assume, as I'm not at all familiar with this field). Far too much knowledge is assumed on the part of the reader. In fact, an uneducated reader like myself has a very hard time determining exactly what this article is supposed to be about. There isn't any real context like, "Throughout history, people have created systems of numbering the years" or something, at least. Not enough discussion of other calender schemes in an overall sense (again, context). What the hell IS the Byzantine calender? What field of history studies it? I learned almost nothing of use, overall.
 * 3) There is a significant Christian POV. Using terms like 'Septuagint' and 'the Incarnation' without explanation (and disclaimer) asserts that a) they are historical facts, and b) most readers will be familiar with them. While I won't argue (a) (not here, anyways), I will say that (b) is certainly not true. This bias runs throughout the length of the article; the Christian world view is essentially the only one presented here.
 * 4) Approximately half of this article has absolutely nothing to do with the Byzantine calender at all, and simply does not belong in this article. (I'm not saying the info is not useful or valid, just out of place.)(Well, except for the extensive quotation in re: the number of years of the generations of Adam. That's a primary, not secondary, source, and it presents highly questionable information as virtual facts. I don't quite see where that would go in this encyclopedia at all, except perhaps an article regarding "early theories of the generations" or some such. Absolutely does not belong here, though.)
 * 5) Afaik, Wikipedia articles do not have appendices.
 * 6) And last, but certainly not least, the bulk of this article reads like an apologia / justification / explanation of some Christian methods of placing "the creation" at a specific place in time. This subject has its own article(s), I believe, and again, has very little to do with the Byzantine calender. (Actually, this material makes up most of the "approximately half" mentioned above.)

To be perfectly frank, my first thought was "AfD", but I know that was an overreaction. Lots of good info here, and much of it quite well written, too. But it is just TMI, and its highly POV to boot. :D There, is that the kind of feedback you wanted? :/ (Sorry if I seem harsh, but that's just the way I am, I'm afraid.) Eaglizard (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very useful, many thanks. Will try to incorporate the corrections you have suggested, and make it more accesible and presentable. (Regarding the Christian POV, in this case it is intrinsically central to this particular subject, however you raise a good point, and this too can be stated more clearly). Cheers, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome! Working with polite editors is always a joy. FWIW, I sort of specialize in copyediting articles for readability and such things; you can see a recent example here. This article needs more structural work before the text itself becomes a real issue, but I'd be happy to take another look later, if you would like. Just leave a note on my talkpage to remind me. :) Eaglizard (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the problems Eaglizard identified are the result of the recent massive merge of the corresponding OrthodoxWiki article into this article by 216.254.167.221 on 15 June 2009 without regard to Wikipedia's style or five pillars. Specifically, that source must be acknowledged. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts offhand. I see that you already corrected the attribution, great. It definitely needs re-work but I believe between us all we can eventually make it an FA class article which is my ultimate goal. True, lengthwise it has become long (after the incorporation); but it is a specialized subject to be sure (and not a particularly accessible one to research at that). It's developmental history was a process that is important to understanding the subject; this calendar was an important one, being officially used by the governments of both Byzantium and of Russia for centuries, not to mention the Eastern Church. Much of the information can be qualified, by stating something like: "according to the Byzantine thought" or "this is how the Byzantines viewed the cosmic significance of their dating system" -- writing it in this way, should create the NPOV in regards to the Incarnation and other subjects, which Eaglizard remarks are presented as facts. To the Byzantines, they were facts. So, yes, the qualification needs to be made.
 * I will attempt to introduce the corrections shortly, including the following:
 * I see (after reading the comments above) that several of the details in the article do not lend themselves to the non-specialist, so will try to pay particular attention to try and briefly eleborate / qualify those in the article.
 * Will move much of the text in the introduction and create another section in the body to describe what the calendar was. Then will rename the historical sections and group together (Alexandrian Era, Chronicon paschale).
 * Regarding the extensive quote by Doukas, I think if we keep the last line, (his consclusion), and delete the rest, it would be better, because it is a primary source, as Eaglizard mentions above. (Although he also mentions it is relevant). Wghat do you think?
 * Cheers. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I now see that Orthodoxwiki acknowledgement is at the bottom of the article but not in accordance with . However, the OrthodoxWiki article was created on October 9, 2008 so some of the verbose talk page version is unnecessary. Virtually all of it was written by Angellight 888, who may be the anonymous user who added it to this article. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogmatic wording
I am concerned that the wording in the St. Hippolytus paragraph isn't entirely objective, but actually dogmatic, as is it the only paragraph in the article that uses "the Lord" (frequently) to refer to Christ. Kaly J. (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long
This article is far, far too long. It needs to be broken up, with a summary given, having links to the new articles created by the breaking. 174.62.239.194 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrections
Greetings,

I dared some corrections in the section "Key dates according to the Byzantine era". But it seems to me that there are more mistakes and necessary changes. I hesitated to do them, because they seemed more extended. So, I thought I should rather share some thoughts.

-- One great mistake is the statement that the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western Empire after the death of Theodosius. This is not correct. For administrative purposes, Roman empire was separated into two parts, "Eastern Roman empire" and "Western Roman empire", since many centuries before. Each had its own emperor, considered fully equal with the other. For some reasons (long wars, economic collapse, migration and wars with the Northern peoples) Western empire collapsed since the fifth century. Convetional date is 476 AD, when no new emperor was appointed and sent to replace to previous one.

-- The reference to Mohammed and the angel is totally irrelevant, and should be removed. Also, well..., is the visit of the angel to Mohammed a historical event?

-- References to "eschatology" and the "eschatological significance" of some dates are probably interesting, but they should be included in another article. They were surely no "key events of the Byzantine era", unless one accepts the eschatological claims. So, it also necessary to change the point of view when writing the relevant article.

-- In another section, it is said that the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed in 1453. This is not correct. What happened were long centuries of Ottoman advance, which started after the battle of Mantzikert in 1071 AD. Last to fall was Kriti (Crete) in 1669 AD. It is true that the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD has a special significance, since it was the capital. But this wasn't the "collapse of Byzantium". After the Fall of Constantinople there was a Byzantine empire of Nicaea, in Pontos, which lasted until 1461. Also, there was another revival in Mystras, in Pelloponisos.

Regards,

user name : Mastros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastros (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Is this a joke? How can we use modern methods to second guess a calendar that's been dead for 300 years? Did it work for them? Are we supposed to go back in time and convince them not to use it? This whole section is ludicrous. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. It's ludicrous. A lot of it is just opinions. I propose we eliminate it. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree with both of you. It's not "just a lot of opinions", but perspectives described from a variety of reliable sources. I can't see anyone, including the sources, "second-guessing" the calendar. Yes, it's no longer in use, but yes, it obviously worked for them. And no, we can't go back in time. It's those suggestions that are ludicrous. What is also very poor is the section title: "Criticism". You evidently have taken that to mean some criticism directed at the calendar, but the word is being applied in a more scholarly sense of "taking a critical look" - in other words, "analysis". But it's still poorly applied here. I'm changing the section title to "In Historical Perspective". Better? Evensteven (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

BAD WRITTEN
This article was written so bad that most people would not understand what it is about. There are no links to other calendars! Hebrew, Muslim... calendiers should be linked to the most ancient that is Serbian calendar, indeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article could certainly use some work, but you should read up on glass houses and stones. — Llywelyn II   06:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New Year's
was September 1 for accounting purposes but September 8 (Mary's Birth) for the liturgical calendar per this source. Is she wrong? because, if not, it's worth mentioning in the article. — Llywelyn II   06:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Slavic Aryan Vedic Calendar
You should add also the year of the Creation in the Star temple in 5509 BC, if we look on all faiths equally, according to Slavic Aryan Vedas and Ynglism or Inglism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:EE2:2D01:BD00:5D25:CA44:95B1:4C5B (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New focus for article
Way too much of this article is focused on the Calendar era used by the Byzantine calendar and not near enough on the history, development, and structure of calenda. Editor2020 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, although there seems to be very little other historical, detailed information available... The structure aspect is covered in the article - at least in part - by noting that this calendar was identical to the Roman Julian Calendar, with the exceptions and differences that are noted already. Also, the mindset associated with the keeping of Byzantine time is described in the sections on the hours and days of the week; the mindset of the keeping of time goes to some understanding of the overall structure as well, however incidental.
 * To cover the history and development aspects properly, might initially be dependent on surveying the various calendar era estimates that were based upon the Septuagint, and were developed over centuries in the Byzantine Empire, ultimately leading to the finalized date in the seventh century; this list of calculated dates is already summarized well in the article: Dating_creation, where several estimates by church fathers are given (perhaps that section could be incorporated into this article); this would be the primary consideration, since chronology as an ancient and historical form was indeed the first modus operandi, the primary consideration. Secondly, by including mentions of the Byzantine Calendar in the writings of Byzantine authors and in official documents would be descriptive, and there is already a section on this in the present article with examples from two prime Byzantine historians; third, would be to uncover evidence of the actual calculations that went into the development of the overall calendar era; this information is missing, but it would probably involve very detailed research into the primary source documents themselves, and neither does there seem to be any secondary academic research available on this aspect at all (i.e. calculations involving the astronomical lunar and solar cycles, and of the cycle of indictions). ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"abbreviated as ε.Κ"
Our wikipedia page here currently claims in the lede that "Ἔτος Κόσμου" is "abbreviated as ε.Κ.". I am not very experienced in this subject but I don't think this is correct and I have no indication it is true.

Firstly, ε.Κ seems to be based on the logic of μ.Χ. and π.Χ.; however, the Χ is only capitalized there because Χριστόν is a proper noun, and I have found no indication online that κόσμου or κτίσεως are treated as proper nouns.

Secondly, none of the sources cited around this claim use or mention the "ε.Κ." abbreviation in any form. That is, neither "How Old is The World?: The Byzantine Era and its Rivals" nor the referenced section "Οικουμενικόν Πατριαρχείον" of ΘΗΕ seem to use this abbreviation. (I may have just missed a use, of course.)

Therefore, I think the term logically should be "ε.κ.", but also I, personally, can't find any sources using it one way or the other. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)