| Revision as of 09:09, 22 April 2010 edit195.195.89.70 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:25, 22 April 2010 edit undo71.136.57.160 (talk) Revert. Usual reason.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{archive box|] ]}} | {{archive box|] ]}} | ||
| ==Triennial |
==Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal== | ||
| And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right. | |||
| There is an inscription which says that in Asia in an unspecified year the last day of the old lunar calendar was 14 Peritios = a.d. X Kal. Feb. (23 January). The following day, from which the calendar would remain aligned to the Roman calendar, was 1 Dystros, a.d. IX Kal. Feb. (24 January). Thereafter, the Asian month would begin on a.d. IX Kal. of the Roman month. The old calendar being lunar, the problem comes down to seeing when 23 January equates to a full moon. | |||
| I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings: | |||
| My table shows two likely candidates - 8BC and 5BC. | |||
| '''Motivation''' | |||
| {|class="wikitable" | |||
| !Year BC (*=regular leap year)||Julian||colspan=2|Irregular Julian (*=leap year) | |||
| |- | |||
| |10||January 19||January 16||January 16 | |||
| |- | |||
| |9*||January 8||January 6||January 5* | |||
| |- | |||
| |8||January 27||January 25||January 24 | |||
| |- | |||
| |7||January 16||January 14||January 13 | |||
| |- | |||
| |6||January 5||January 3||January 2 | |||
| |- | |||
| |5*||January 24||January 22||January 21 | |||
| |- | |||
| |4||January 13||January 12||January 11 | |||
| |- | |||
| |3||February 1||January 31||January 30 | |||
| |- | |||
| |2||January 21||January 20||January 19 | |||
| |- | |||
| |1*||January 10||January 9||January 8 | |||
| |} | |||
| The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the ''mensis intercalaris'', was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (''a.d. VI Kal. Mart.'' to ''Prid. Kal. Mart.'') becoming the last five days of the ''mensis intercalaris'' with the same names. The start of the ''mensis intercalaris'' was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc. | |||
| There was an eclipse on March 23, 5BC (Julian date). There was thus also a full moon on January 24, 5BC (Julian date). I have not investigated the arrangement of intercalary years in the ancient Greek calendar. | |||
| '''Leap year error''' | |||
| The inscription mentions an intercalation. It is unlikely that the irregular Julian calendar was being introduced (in 8BC) because it was no longer intercalated at that time, and the purpose of the reform (as in Egypt and Rome) was to introduce the correct Julian calendar. The likely date is therefore 5BC, with the regular Julian intercalation coming a few weeks after adoption. | |||
| ...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt. | |||
| There is clear indication that, having moved to correct the calendar in Rome in 9BC, Augustus turned his attention to Asia. He would have been well aware of the situation in Egypt, and the fact that he felt no need to take any action there indicates that no action was needed. Professor Jones says: | |||
| I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table ], by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The Egyptians must at some point have become aware that the Roman dates that they assigned to particular days differed by one or two days from the dates according to the pontifices, but we should not assume that they would have immediately changed the reckoning to conform with the official version of the calendar. The calendar equation Roman July 19 = Egyptian Epeiph 27 discussed by Hagedorn indicates that conformity was imposed by 2BC. | |||
| :Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one. | |||
| This date equation puts the wandering year out of the picture, but to conclude that that indicates that the Egyptians had been forced to abandon the fixed relationship with the Alexandrian calendar seems to me misguided. From 9BC the pressure was all the other way. | |||
| :Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction '''is''' the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed '''any''' published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article. | |||
| I used the Easter holiday to translate a paper made use of by Dr Bennett in his argument. | |||
| :Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me. | |||
| Dieter Hagedorn | |||
| :Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C. | |||
| On the Egyptian calendar under Augustus | |||
| :As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ). | |||
| from: Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 211 - 222. | |||
| :As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --] (]) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Copyright: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn | |||
| ==New calendar (Eastern churches)== | |||
| ON THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR UNDER AUGUSTUS | |||
| There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at ]. ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Theodore Cressy Skeat is the author of that basic description of the way the Ptolemaic calendars work , of which practical conversion tables we all make use, dealing with dates, which through the naming of the regnal years of one of the Ptolemies and of the day in an Egyptian month are fixed, to convert them to their Julian equivalent. | |||
| The problem there lies in this, that one used in Ptolemaic time the wandering Egyptian year with a constant 365 days (consisting of 12 months of 30 days and 5 additional days placed at the end of the year, epagomenai), while in the Julian calendar it is well known that every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. Through that the difference between the Egyptian and Julian year increases one day every four years from 29 February. | |||
| Under Augustus the Egyptian calendar was reformed. The final result of this reform, which we can trace over centuries, is the "Alexandrian" calendar, in which regularly every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. The Alexandrian and the Julian year agree thereafter in the long term, with an average 365 1/4 - day exact agreement, so that there is exact equivalence;always the leap day in the Alexandrian year was added not on the same day as in the Julian calendar, namely on 29 February , but at the end of the year as the sixth additional day. While the New Year's Day, 1 Thoth, normally falls on 29 August, it corresponds after an Alexandrian leap year with 30 August. This is regularly the case in the year which precedes the Julian leap year; up to 29 February of the following year there is always a difference compared to the normal relationship of one day. | |||
| With the completion of the above - mentioned standard work Skeat has now recently brought out a small volume with similar tables which for that will serve to illustrate the changeover from the Ptolemaic - Egyptian calendar to the Alexandrian calendar which - so it is said - was accomplished under Augustus. | |||
| In consideration of the high regard which Skeat as well as Fachmann enjoys on questions of the chronology, it is also to be expected that his interpretation becomes quickly and perhaps also uncritically generally accepted. To me there are after the reading of the little book however considerable doubts remaining on the rectitude of his approach. To me it seems that this interpretation is based on unproved (and by our present information also unprovable) theories. These are not one's own theories, which are based on other thoughts, so one comes to different conclusions. The purpose of this paper is to describe these conclusions and equally to offer them as an alternative to Skeat's solution to the question. | |||
| First the circumstances are set out in which the question how the reform of the Egyptian calendar under Augustus was accomplished became more complicated.When we speak of the "Julian" calendar, so by that we mean the calendar that theoretically was brought into effect through C. Julius Caesar's calendar reform in the year 45 in Rome. In reality however Caesar's ideas, which he had ordered, that ''quarto quoque anno'' should be intercalated, were falsified, because this expression, on account of the inclusive counting system customary in Rome, was misunderstood as "in every third year". One intercalated from there falsely in the years 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, and 9 BC. After that at first Augustus brought through his decree, future ''quinto quoque anno'' a leap year, however, to ensure again to save Caesar's original intentions for the system's validity through omission of the leap day in 5BC, 1BC and 4AD the already excess intercalated days. From 1 March AD4 onwards the actual misaligned and the ideal Julian calendar were in agreement, on 29 February AD8 it was for the first time intercalated in agreement with the ideal calendar. The modern scientific research uses the ideal Julian calendar exclusively, which it also applied during the time before 1 March AD4, reconciled with the fact that up to this time it was nowhere in use. | |||
| Skeat makes now in the succession to W. F. Snyder the following theories: | |||
| 1. The reform of the Egyptian calendar brought in by Augustus had for its aim the alignment of this to the one found to be in use in Rome, i.e. perverted, to correct the Julian calendar.The second theory hangs tightly together with it: the reform must have taken place in a year in which 1 Thoth fell on 29 August (according to the Julian calendar then found to be in use). Skeat fixes that on the fact, that this equation was the usual one after the firm establishment of the Alexandrian calendar. | |||
| The postulate put forward under 2 is fulfilled in 30BC. The theory formulated under 1 forces the assumption, that in Egypt in the years 28, 25, 22, 19, 16, 13 and 10BC one had inserted a 6 epagomene, thereafter the intercalation was abandoned, with the correct intercalation to begin in a four - yearly cycle for the first time in the year AD 7. This is the essence of Snyder's solution to the problem, which Skeat follows. But are these theories acceptable? If the aim of the reform really was an alignment with the system practised in Rome, why has one then not plain and simple introduced the Roman calendar in Egypt? At the reorganisation of Egypt into a Roman province it had been lightly managed. On the other hand, i.e. at the reorganisation of the wandering new year and the 30 - day Egyptian months, a congruence with the months was never achieved, but a divergence in the numbers of the day - dates was inherent in the system. Already the diverging day - dates do not first of all stand after the reform in unchanging correlation, rather the correspondences were displaced, as above explained, after every Egyptian leap year for a half year by 1 day, more weight being given when one actually, as Skeat accepts, intercalated every three years. | |||
| One takes it as given, the reform of the Egyptian calendar by Augustus had another purpose, then the consequences are also quite different. Why should it not be the case, that Augustus in Egypt has wanted to achieve precisely this in the action, what Caesar also in the sense had had in Rome but had not been understood, and what already over 200 years before Ptolemy III. Euergetes I had planned,but likewise not had been able to carry through, namely an alignment of the calendars with the astronomical year, which it is well known comprises (roughly) 365 1/4 days. That the interval of three years fixed in the intercalation practised in Rome was absolute nonsense, the insights already soon allowed it to be grasped that this was right. That also Augustus listened to them, proves the fact, that he finally had achieved also in Rome the right understanding in the action. | |||
| If from now on the reform in that was effected, that with no consideration for the practice in Rome immediately the right manner of intercalation in a four - yearly interval was brought in, then it is a simple calculation to find out, when for the first time a 6 epagomene must have been intercalated, fixed, that through that the Alexandrian calendar so familiar to us at a later time was probably established. The solution already found for a long time is: at the end of Augustus' 8th regnal year, i.e. on 29th August 22BC (in the "ideal" Julian calendar); cf also the following tables. | |||
| For an irrefutable proof for the rightness of the traditional basis to take, which I share, I see myself not in the situation; because an absolutely certain verdict between the two solutions put forward might well be only then hit upon, if in the source a date equation on a 6 epagomene were found, and actually in one year, which according to only one of the two hypotheses was a leap year. I have not been able to find such evidence. | |||
| But while Snyder and Skeat, on every attempt to do without, to substantiate their theses through documentary evidence, I believe a contemporary source to be able to furnish a compelling argument for the rightness of the traditional basis. | |||
| It comes in the form of the well - known Latin letter P. Vindob. L1c = CPL 247.The text, which with certainty dates from the time of Augustus in an unknown year carries in 2.16 the date equation | |||
| :''XIIII K(alendas) August(as)'' Epeiph 27. | |||
| Also 19 July is equated with 27 Epeiph, in which the same thing is understood, that the Latin statement only can cover the calendar actually in use, not our ideal Julian calendar. One now takes Skeat's tables as the basis, then it quickly becomes apparent that the correspondence of a 27 Epeiph with 19 July of the "Current Julian Calendar" is never possible. In "Table B" on pp 8ff namely 1 Mesore falls on 25 July in every year of the "Current Julian Calendar", 27 Epeiph consequently on 21 July. This is unavoidably so, because according to Snyder/Skeat the Egyptian calendar under Augustus already employed all ''vagaries'' of the Julian calendar actually in use (cf footnote 6 above), so that in the relation of the Egyptian calendar to the Julian calendar actually in use already the equivalences must be valid, which are known later in the relation of the Alexandrian calendar to the ideal (and up to this time no more different from the actually used) Julian calendar. 27 Epeiph then likewise always corresponds with 21 July. | |||
| That however on the basis of the traditional opinion a correspondence of 19 July in the calendar actually in use with 27 Epeiph is definitely possible J. Kramer has already pointed out.It occurs namely in regnal years 6 - 11, 13 - 14, 17 and 25 - 28 ( = 24 - 19, 17 - 16, 13 and 5 - 2 BC.) In those years 27 Epeiph falls thereafter on 21 July of the ideal Julian calendar, but the Julian calendar actually in use lagged behind the ideal Julian calendar an exact two days here: to that just compare Skeat's "Table A". 27 Epeiph fell in them consequently on 19 July. | |||
| One will also not dismiss the date equation in P. Vindob. L1c as a copying error, then can Snyder and Skeat's portrayal not be true, while on this basis a plausible explanation can be found. | |||
| The following tables illustrate the equivalences between the Egyptian and the ideal Julian calendar, which on this basis are produced for the first 9 regnal years of Augustus.For the next following years the standard tables provided for the Alexandrian year mentioned in footnote 2 above can be used. By that is to observe, that Augustus' regnal years 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 etc. in the Egyptian calendar were leap years, so that to the start of each next following year (i.e. Julian 18/17, 14/13, 10/9, 6/5, 2/1, 3/4, 7/8 etc. the earlier alternative equivalences are allowed for. | |||
| Notes | |||
| 1 Th. C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 39), Muenchen 1 1954, 2 1969. | |||
| 2 These correlations illustrate e.g. the tables by P. W. Pestman, Chronologie egyptienne d'apres les textes demotiques (Papyrologica Lugduno - Batavia, vol. 15), Leiden 1967, after p. 8 and R. S. Bagnall - K. A. Worp, The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia, vol. 7), Zutphen 1978, pp 96 - 102. | |||
| 3 Th. C. Skeat, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt. Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C. - 14 A.D. (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 84), Muenchen 1993. | |||
| 4 I follow here entirely Skeat's implementations (The Reign of Augustus, pp 2 - 3), the explanation at that time of P. V. Neugebauer, Der julianische Kalender und seine Entstehung, in: Astronomische Nachtrichten 257, 1935, No. 6149, Sp. 65 - 74 reviews. Cf also A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I 7,) Muenchen 1972, pp 155 - 158. | |||
| 5 W. F. Snyder, When Was the Alexandrian Calendar Established? AJPh 64, 1943, 385 - 398. The verbose in superior mixture rather than argumentatively written paper attempts through the use of illustrative tables to give the impression of its exact scientific nature, but it contains not one single compelling argument to the immediate support for the aforementioned theories. To my evaluation Snyder has only created confusion after, when the old research already has recognised the right thing for a long time - compare only Wilcken, Grundzuege p. 55 et seq. | |||
| 6 Cf p. 4: "Thereafter the reformed Egyptian Calendar must have shared in all the vagaries of the current Julian Calendar, since the intention of the reform was to stablish a constant relationship between the two calendars". | |||
| 7 Cf pp 1 - 2: "Since, as a result of this reform, 1 Thoth always fell on 29 August ..., it is obvious that the reform must have taken place in a year when it did in fact fall on 29 August ''in the Roman Calendar currently in use''". Also p. 3: "The problem, already stated, is to find a period when Thoth 1 in the unreformed Egyptian calendar fell on 29 August ''in the Roman Calendar currently in use''." | |||
| 8 He had likewise already wanted to intercalate every four years a 6 epagomene. The intention is in the Canopus decree, documented and well - founded; cf OGIS 56 = A. Bernand, Le Delta egyptien d'apres les textes grecs, 1 - les confins libyques, vol. III, Cairo 1970, pp 989 - 1036, lines 32 - 37. | |||
| 9 I have searched with help the CD of the Duke Data Bank as well as also in the extremely helpful Lists of C. Balconi, Documenti greci e latini d'Egitto di eta augustea, Aegyptus 56, 1976, 208 - 286. It gives in the uncertain period in general no date equation for a 6 epagomene. | |||
| 10 Cf on that J. Kramer, Die Verwendung des Apex und P. Vindob. L1c, ZPE 88, 1991, 141 - 150. One finds there pp 143 - 144, footnote 17 the necessary references to older literature. Kramer's paper could not be more consulted than the new edition by P. Cugusi, Corpus Epistularum Latinarum Papyris Tabulis Ostracis servatarum (Papyrologica Florentina, Vol. 23), Florence 1992, No. 8. | |||
| 11 cf pp 144 - 145. | |||
| 12 Kramer's paper, loc. cit., which purely arithmetically puts also the year 27 and 26 into consideration, needs correction. In the years 27 and 26 in my opinion 22 July of the ideal Julian calendar corresponds with 27 Epeiph; there the date in the calendar actually used is likewise retarded by two days, one must have in this year expected ''XIII K(alendas) August(as)''. There further the renaming according to tradition of the month ''Sextilis'' as ''Augustus'' was effected first in the year 8 BC (cf Samuel, ''loc. cit''., p. 155, footnote 6), only the years 5 - 2BC for the writing of the papyrus fall into consideration. | |||
| 13 In far scarcer detail already Martina Richter has achieved the same thing in ZPE 86, 1991, 252. | |||
| 14 Those tables respectively parts of the tables by Skeat, which illustrate the equivalence between the initially practised and the ideal Julian calendar, are through this not relevant. | |||
| (Translator's Note) | |||
| There then follows a set of tables. The sixth epagomenal day makes a solitary appearance between 31 August 30 BC and 28 August 21BC on 29 August 22BC. The Julian leap day (taken as 29 February) appears in 29, 25 and 21 BC. The last day of the wandering year is taken as epagomene 5, 28 August 22BC. | |||
| '''Conclusions''' | |||
| Hagedorn's paper is '''not''', as Dr Bennett claims, support for his proposed text. The letter is written in Latin, obviously by a Roman. The situation is similar to that of a Russian equating his old style Christmas (25 December) with the corresponding Meletian date (7 January). ] (]) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Eastern European calendar: naming proposal== | |||
| On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot. | |||
| :Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option) | |||
| :Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| :Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| :Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of option 1. | |||
| The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n. | |||
| '''This is not the place to vote'''. Click on this link ], read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others. | |||
| Uma Paschoa muito feliz a todos. '''O povo unido jamais sera vencido'''. ] (]) 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:25, 22 April 2010
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives |
Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal
And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right.
I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings:
Motivation
The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the mensis intercalaris, was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (a.d. VI Kal. Mart. to Prid. Kal. Mart.) becoming the last five days of the mensis intercalaris with the same names. The start of the mensis intercalaris was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc.
Leap year error
...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt.
I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Celsus and the Triennial cycles:A Proposal, by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one.
- Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction is the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed any published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article.
- Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me.
- Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C.
- As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ).
- As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
New calendar (Eastern churches)
There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: