网帖翻译

The birth of AD chronology
In Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, Patrick Geary writes, referring to the Tenth Century Collapse:
“Those living on the other side of this caesura felt themselves separated by a great gulf from this earlier age. Already in the eleventh century those people who undertook to preserve the past in written form, for their contemporaries or their posterity, seemed to know little and understand less of their familial, institutional, cultural, and regional past. […] And yet they were deeply concerned with this past, possessed by it almost, and their invented past became the goal and justification of their programs in the present.”

公元年表的诞生
在《记忆的幻影:第一个千年结束时的记忆与遗忘》一书中，吉尔里在提到十世纪大崩溃时写道:
“那些生活在这条分界线另一边的人感到自己与这个早期时代隔着一条巨大的鸿沟。早在11世纪，那些致力于为他们的同代人或后代以书面形式保存过去的人，似乎对他们的家族，制度，文化和地区的过去知之甚少。然而，他们深深关注着这个过去，几乎被它所占据，他们虚构的过去成为他们现在计划的目标和理由。”链接略。

From the “Ground Zero” of the Tenth Century Collapse, they recreated this past from bits and pieces — a form of “recovered memory”. It is this recreation that we have:
“Much of what we think we know about the early Middle Ages was determined by the changing problems and concerns of eleventh-century men and women, not by those of the more distant past. Unless we understand the mental and social structures that acted as filters, suppressing or transforming the received past in the eleventh century in terms of presentist needs, we are doomed to misunderstand those earlier centuries.”

从十世纪大崩溃的“归零地”，他们用碎片重建了过去——一种“恢复记忆”的形式。我们的重建是这样的:
“我们认为自己对中世纪早期的了解，在很大程度上是由11世纪男女不断变化的问题和关切所决定的，而不是由更遥远的过去所决定的。除非我们理解作为心理安慰和其中的社会结构，按照现在的需要压制或改变了11世纪被接受的过去，否则我们注定会误解前几个世纪。”

The confused perspective of eleventh-century men on earlier ages can account for the chronological distortions that later made it into history books. Within a few generations, what Rodulfus Glaber still calls “the Roman world” (citation above), destroyed by cataclysms, plague and famine only decades before his time, was idealized and pushed back in almost mythical times.

11世纪人们对更早时代的混乱看法可以解释后来被写入历史书的时间混乱。在几代人的时间里，被Rodulfus Glaber所称的“罗马世界”，在他的时代之前几十年被灾难、瘟疫和饥荒所摧毁，被理想化，并被推到了近乎神话的时代。

This coincides with the rise of Christianity, heavily dominated by apocalypticism in its infancy. In Matthew 24:6-8, when Jesus’ disciples asked him: “Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what sign will there be of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the world?” he answered: “There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All this is only the beginning of the birthpangs.”[77] “In the minds of survivors,” Heinsohn writes, “the ancient gods had failed, but the apocalyptic books of the Bible had been proven right. Spontaneous conversions to the various Judaism-derived sects quickly increased throughout the empire.”

这与基督教的兴起不期而遇，基督教在萌芽阶段受到末世论的严重支配。在马太福音中，当耶稣的门徒问他:“请告诉我们，什么时候有这事?你降临和世界的末了有什么预兆?”他回答说:“多处必有饥荒和地震。”这一切只是分娩阵痛的开始。”
“在幸存者心中，”海因索恩写道，“古代的神已经失败了，而《圣经》的末日预言被证明是正确的。”在整个帝国内，自发地皈依各种犹太教教派的人数迅速增加。”

The Book of Revelation sounded like a summary of the conflagrations just passed:
“A mighty earthquake took place, and the sun became black like animal hair sack-cloth, and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, […] And the kings of the earth, and the great people and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves, and among the rocks of the mountains. […] There came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was rained on the earth. And one third of the earth was burned up, and one third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. Something like a huge mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. […] A huge star fell from heaven, burning like a lamp, and it fell on a third of the rivers, and on the sources of the waters.” (from Revelation of John, chapters 6 and 8)

《启示录》听起来像是对刚刚发生的大火的总结:
“大地震发生了，太阳变黑了，像动物的毛发一样，满月变黑了，像血一样，天上的星星落在地上，……地上的君王，伟人，将军，富人，有权势的人，所有的人，奴隶和自由人，都藏在山洞里，藏在山上的岩石里。有雹与火参着血降在地上。地的三分之一烧毁，树木的三分之一被烧毁，青草也都被烧毁了。好像一座燃烧着火的大山被扔进海里。有一颗大大的星从天上落下来、好像灯烧著、落在江河的三分之一、和众水的源头上。”

Heinsohn suggests that the Book of Revelation directly influenced the chronological shift, because its chapter 20 postulates a thousand period between Jesus and the catastrophe: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven. / He took hold of the dragon, / Satan, and chained him for 1,000 years. / He could not fool the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were completed.” Church father Cyprianus (200-258 AD, i.e. 900-958 in revised chronology), a survivor of the catastrophe in his heavily hit city of Carthage, wrote: “Our Lord has foretold all this. War and famine, earth quakes and pestilence will occur everywhere” (On Mortality).[79] Rodulfus Glaber also wrote at the end of book 2: “All this accords with the prophecy of St John [Revelation 20:7], who said that the Devil would be freed after a thousand years.” Heinsohn suggests Michael Psellos (c. 1018-1078 AD), author of the Chronographia, as the main engineer of the chronological shift.

海因索恩认为，《启示录》直接影响了时间顺序的变化，因为它的第20章假定耶稣和灾难之间隔了一千年: “我看见一位天使从天降下。他抓住了龙，撒旦，把他锁了一千年。他不能再愚弄列国了，直到那一千年结束。”
教父Cyprianus (公元200-258年，即修订的年表900-958年)是迦太基城遭受重创的灾难的幸存者，他写道:“我们的主已经预言了这一切。战争和饥荒，地震和瘟疫将无处不在”(论死亡)。
Rodulfus Glaber也在第二卷的末尾写道:“所有这些都符合圣约翰的预言[启示录20:7]，他说魔鬼将在一千年后被释放。”海因索恩认为，《年代记》(Chronographia)的作者Michael Psellos（约公元1018-1078年)是打乱时间顺序的主要设计者。

To understand more precisely the role played by Christianity in the chronological reset, we would need a clear vision of the history of early Christianity, which we don’t have, as I have shown in Part 2. What is almost certain is that, contrary to what Church historians have written, the Roman world was not dominated by Christianity until the eleventh-century Gregorian Reform. Excavation of Carolingian tombs casts doubt on the Christian religion of that age: “excavators recently analyzing the contents of 96 Carolingian burials from 86 different locations (dated 751-911, but mostly from the time of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious), were shocked by an extremely widespread practice resembling Charon’s obol. That payment was used as a means of bribing the legendary ferryman for passage across the Styx, the river that divided the world of the living from the world of the dead.”[81] Even more puzzling — but logical within the Heinsohnian paradigm —, some of those coins are Roman coins.

为了更准确地理解基督教在时间重置中所扮演的角色，我们需要对早期基督教的历史有一个清晰的认识，正如我在第二部分中所展示的那样，我们没有这样的认识。几乎可以肯定的是，与教会历史学家所写的相反，罗马世界直到11世纪的格里高利改革才被基督教统治。
对加洛林王朝墓葬的挖掘使人们对那个时代的基督教产生了怀疑:“挖掘者最近分析了来自86个不同地点的96个加洛林王朝墓葬的内容(时间为751-911，但主要来自查理曼大帝和虔诚者路易时代)，对一种极其普遍的类似于卡戎的银币的做法感到震惊。
这笔钱被用来贿赂传说中的摆渡人，让他通过冥河。冥河把生者的世界和死者的世界分隔开来。更令人费解的是，其中一些硬币是罗马硬币，这在海因索尼范式中是合乎逻辑的。

One likely factor in the chronological confusion of the eleventh century, leading to the stretch of 300 years into a millennium, came from the traditional Roman computation. Roman historians counted years ab urbe condita (“since the foundation of the city”), abbreviated AUC. A monk named Dionysius Exiguus determined that Jesus’ birth took place in 753 AUC. That means that 1000 AUC falls on 246 AD, during the Third Century Crisis. People living soon after the cataclysm (like Dionysius)[82] believed they were living around 1000 AUC. They could easily be led to believe that they really lived 1000 years after Christ. It has actually been suggested that the “Dominus” in Anno Domine originally meant Romulus, the founder of Rome. Changing Romulus into Christ would have been easy since both legendary figures have similar mythical attributes.

11世纪的年代混乱，导致300年变成了一千年，其中一个可能的因素来自传统的罗马计算方法。罗马历史学家计算是基于“自城市建立以来”，缩写为AUC。一位名叫Dionysius Exiguus的修道士确定耶稣诞生于公元753年。这意味着1000 AUC是在公元246年——三世纪危机期间。
生活在大灾难之后不久的人们(如Dionysius)认为他们生活在公元1000年左右。他们很容易被误导，相信他们真的生活在基督之后1000年。实际上，有人认为《纪元》中的“Dominus”最初指的是罗马的创始人罗穆卢斯(Romulus)。把罗穆卢斯变成基督是很容易的，因为这两个传奇人物都有相似的神话属性。

Like Christ, Romulus suffered a sacrificial death, and then the Romans “began to cheer Romulus, like a god born of a god, the king and the father of the city, imploring his protection, so that he should always protect his children with his benevolent favor” (Titus Livy, History of Rome I.16). (Whether we take the resemblance between Romulus and Christ as another clue that Livy is a medi or Renaissance fabrication makes little difference.) At some stage, people were led by the Church to change their notion of living one millennium after Romulus into the notion of living one millennium after Christ. This shift was part and parcel of the Christianization process: just like the Church Christianized many Pagan gods, holy places and holy days, it Christianized AUD into AD. The confusion was facilitated by the fact that AUC was still used in the eleventh century (some chroniclers such as Ademar of Chabannes also counted years in annus mundi, based on biblical chronology).

像基督一样，罗穆卢斯牺牲而死，然后罗马人“开始欢呼罗穆卢斯，就像神所生的神，国王和城市的父亲，恳求他的保护，让他永远用他仁慈的恩惠保护他的孩子”(Titus Livy，《罗马历史I.16》)。
(我们是否把罗穆卢斯和基督之间的相似视为里维（Livy）是中世纪或文艺复兴时期虚构的另一个线索，没有什么区别。)在某种程度上，人们在教会的引导下，改变了生活在罗穆卢斯之后一千年的观念，变成了生活在基督之后一千年的观念。
这种转变是基督教化过程的一部分:就像教会将许多异教徒的神、圣地和圣日，基督教化一样，它将罗马年表（AUC）基督教化到公元。这种混淆是由于在11世纪仍在使用AUC(一些编年史家，如夏巴纳的阿德玛尔，也根据圣经年表计算世界年数)。

Since, according to Dionysius, Jesus was born in 753 AUC, the confusion of AUC with AD added 753 years, which is approximately the length of phantom time added into the first millennium according to Heinsohn. The Church was then too happy to fill in the vacuum and make itself look older than it was, with forgeries such as Liver Pontificalis, the Donation of Constantine, and the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. Papal clerics imposed their millennium-long Christian history, when in reality, their Christ had been crucified (under Augustus) only 300 years before Gregory VII (1073-1085).

根据Dionysius的说法，耶稣出生于罗马年表的第753年，罗马年表和公元年表的混淆增加了753年，根据海因索恩的说法，这大致也是虚构时间加到第一个千年中的长度。当时的教会太高兴了，不愿意填补这一空白，用伪造的《Liver Pontificalis》、《君士坦丁的捐赠》和伪《伊西多里亚诏书》来使自己看起来比实际更古老。
教皇的神职人员强加了他们长达千年的基督教历史，而实际上，他们的基督在格列高利七世(1073-1085)之前300年才被钉死在十字架上(在奥古斯都统治下)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

In the comment section of my previous installment, Professor Eric Knibbs has obxted to the theory that the AD chronology was imposed after the Tenth Century Collapse, by the Gregorian reformers or their immediate predecessors. He has provided evidence that AD dates were already in use in ninth-century manuscxts. For instance, on codex Sankt-Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 272 (here page 245), we read “anno dccc.vi. ab incarnatione domini” (“In the year 806 from the incarnation of the Lord”). In Ms. lat. 2341, Paris, Bibl. nat. (here), future dates for the celebration of Easter are given in the form “anno incarnationis domini nostri iesu christi dcccxliii” (“the year of the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ 843”). Another case is Clm 14429 at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (here), which indicates on the first folio the date when it was copied: “anno domini dcccxxi” (“the year of the Lord 821”).

在我上一期文章的评论部分，Eric Knibbs教授反对公元年表是在十世纪崩溃后由格里高利教改革者或他们的前任强加的理论。他提供的证据表明，公元9世纪的手稿中已经使用了公元日期。例如，在圣加伦抄本上，《Stiftsbibliothek》272页……。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

However, on second thought, I find the obxtion inconclusive, because there is no way of knowing if scribes were using AD dates consistently. The problem is illustrated by the above-mentioned Rodulfus Glaber, writing between 1026 and 1040. In Book II, §8 of his autograph manuscxt, Rodulfus gives the date “888 of the Word incarnate” instead of 988 (according to the editor’s footnote in my Latin-French edition). In Book 1, §23, he mentions an event during the pontificate of Benedict VIII (1012-1024) and dates it from “the year 710 of the Lord’s incarnation.” The editor corrects him in footnote: “In fact in 1014, but the manuscxt corrected by Rodulfus carries indisputably the date 710; nothing explains such a mistake.”[83] One thing that can explain such mistakes is the floating state of the chronology.

然而，仔细一想，我发现这个反对意见是不确定的，因为没有办法知道抄写员是否一直使用公元纪年。上述提到的Rodulfus Glaber在1026年至1040年间的著述说明了这个问题。在他的亲笔手稿的第2卷第8节中，Rodulfus给出的日期是“世界化身的888年”而不是988年(根据我的拉丁法语版本的编辑的脚注)。
在第1卷第23节，他提到本笃八世(1012-1024)任教皇期间的一件事，并将其日期定在“主道成肉身的710年”。编辑在脚注中纠正他:“事实上是在1414年，但Rodulfus更正的手稿毫无疑问是710年;没有什么能解释这样的错误。”
有一件事可以解释这种错误，那就是年表的浮动状态。

Most probably, Rodulfus borrowed these “erroneous” dates from others without realizing they were tuned on a different dating scale. Even a manuscxt carrying a date like 806 AD could be misdated, that is, written by someone counting years with a shorter chronology and living in the Gregorian age. What is illustrated by Rodulfus is that the AD dating system did not become settled overnight, and that different people could ascribe different AD dates to very recent times. A case by case examination of supposedly ninth-century manuscxts with AD dates should determine if the dating is consistent with these manuscxts surviving the Tenth Century Collapse.

最有可能的是，Rodulfus从别人那里借用了这些“错误”的日期，却没有意识到它们是在不同的日期尺度上调整的。即使是带有公元806年这样日期的手稿也可能是错误的，也就是说，是生活在格里高利历时代的人用较短的年表计算年份所写的。Rodulfus所说明的是，公元年代体系不是一夜之间就确定下来的，不同的人可以将不同的公元日期归因于最近的时代。对标有公元日期的所谓9世纪手稿进行逐个检查，应该可以确定日期是否与这些手稿在10世纪崩溃时幸存下来的日期一致。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Starting from the premise that AD dates were well established long before the Gregorian Reform, historians have assumed that, when medi men saw the year 1000 approach, they must have feared the worst. This assumption has been proven false: our sources are mute about the supposed “fears of the year 1000.” Historians who nevertheless insist on its reality, like Richard Landes, resort to funny arguments like “a consensus of silence that masks a great deal of concern. […] medi writers avoided the subject of the millennium whenever and wherever possible.”[84] More convincingly, the missing “fears of the year 1000” make a strong argument that the AD computation came in use after the year 1000.

从公元日期早在格里高利改革之前就已经确定的前提出发，历史学家们假设，当中世纪的人看到1000年即将到来时，他们一定担心最坏的情况。这个假设已经被证明是错误的:我们的消息来源对所谓的“1000年的恐惧”保持了沉默。
然而，像Richard Landes这样坚持其真实性的历史学家，却诉诸于一些有趣的论点，比如“掩盖了大量令人担忧的沉默共识”。中世纪的作家们无论何时何地都尽量回避千年这个话题。更有说服力的是，缺失的“对1000年的恐惧”有力地证明了公元1000年之后才开始使用公元1000年的计算方法。

Conclusion
In the two previous installments, I pointed out all kinds of reasons to question the authenticity and accepted dating of many sources. Some of my working hypotheses can now be corrected. In Part 1, “How fake is Roman Antiquity?” I agreed with Polydor Hochart’s obxtion to the possibility that books from Imperial Rome were preserved until the 14th-15th century because monks copied them in the 9th, 10th or 11th century. Christian monks copying Pagan works on expensive parchments is just not credible. Rather, we have every reason to believe that, whenever they got their hands on such books, monks either destroyed them or scrapped them to reuse the parchment.

结论
在前两篇文章中，我指出了质疑许多资料来源的真实性和公认日期的各种理由。我的一些假设现在可以被纠正了。
在第一部分，“罗马古代有多假?”我同意Polydor Hochart的反对意见，即“罗马帝国的书籍被保存到14 -15世纪可能是因为僧侣在9世纪、10世纪或11世纪抄写了复制本”。基督教僧侣在昂贵的羊皮纸上抄写异教徒的作品是不可信的。相反，我们有充分的理由相信，无论僧侣们何时得到这样的书，他们要么销毁它们，要么将它们抹除，然后重新书写。

Hochart therefore concludes that these books from Imperial Rome are forgeries. But Heinsohn’s revised chronology now gives us a more satisfactory solution: the original composition of these works (1st century) and their medi copies (9th century at the earliest) are not separated by seven centuries or more, but by one or two centuries at the most. The 9th century still belonged to Roman times, and Christianity was then in its infancy. That doesn’t eliminate suspicion of Medi or Renaissance fraud, but that reduces it. We can now read Roman sources with a different perspective.

因此，Hochart得出结论，这些来自罗马帝国的书籍是伪造的。
但海因索恩修订的年表现在给了我们一个更令人满意的解决方案:这些作品的原始组成(1世纪)和它们的中世纪手抄本 (最早9世纪)没有相隔7个世纪或更长时间，最多只隔了一两个世纪。9世纪仍属于罗马时代，那时基督教还处于萌芽阶段。这并不能消除对中世纪或文艺复兴时期欺诈的怀疑，但却减少了这种怀疑。我们现在可以用不同的视角来阅读罗马文献。

In Part 2, “How fake is Church history?”, I focused on Church history and agreed with Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), the Jesuit librarian who came to the frightening conclusion that all the works ascribed to Augustine (AD 354-430), Jerome of Stridon (AD 347-420), Ambrose of Milan (c. AD 340-397), ad many others, could not have been written before the 11th or 12th century, and were therefore forgeries. We can now consider that Hardouin was both right and wrong. He was right in estimating these works much younger than officially claimed (though perhaps wih some exaggeration), but he was not necessarily right in concluding that they were forgeries; if Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose really belong, in stratigraphic time, to the end of the Early Middle Ages at the earliest, it is no wonder they are attacking the same heresies as the medi Church who promoted them.

第二部分“教会历史有多假?”，我把注意力集中在教会历史上，并同意Jean Hardouin,（1646-1729年)的观点。这位耶稣会图书管理员得出了一个令人恐惧的结论: 奥古斯丁(公元354-430年)、斯特里顿的杰罗姆(公元347-420年)、米兰的安布罗斯(公元340-397年)和其他许多人的作品，不可能在11世纪或12世纪之前写成，因此是伪造的。
我们现在可以认为Hardouin是对的，也是错的。他对这些作品的估计比官方宣称的要年轻得多(尽管可能有些夸张)，这是对的，但他断定它们是赝品并不一定是对的;如果奥古斯丁、杰罗姆和安布罗斯，从地层学的角度来看，真的最早属于中世纪早期的末期，那么他们攻击的异端就和推动他们的中世纪教会一样，也就不足为奇了。
（完）