The End of Time and Mathematical Gymnastics
The Christian concept of the end of time first became associated
with the calendar in the first century after the death of Christ. Based
upon Jewish millennial thought, the idea of the Great Week became a part
of the Christian tradition. The Great Week is the idea that for each day
of the creation, there would be a corresponding 1000 years before the return
of the Messiah. Thus, from Adam until the Messiah’s return would be composed
of 6000 years. About 120 CE, the Epistle of Barnabas wrote the first document
in which the concept of the Great Week was talked about in reference to
Christianity, but there was no mention of where the world stood along the
continuum of 6000 years. Around the beginning of the 4th century, Hippolytus
of Rome put forth the theory that the world was created 5,500 years before
the birth of Christ, thus leaving the world another 200 years before the
end of time. While this may appear to be a dark prediction, it was intended
as such and in fact was meant to be a delay tactic to downplay the role
of doomsayers claiming the end of time was upon them. Hippolytus’ theory
has since become known as the AM I calendar and was the first in a serious
of
scripturally-based delays when the continent was found to be
facing
the impending apocalypse. However, just over 100 years later, it became
clear that the proclaimed theory of Hippolytus was on the verge of having
itself tested by the calendar. As the church became nervous, the creation
of the AM II calendrical system came into being claiming that the creation
took place 5,200 years before the birth of Christ, thus giving the world
another 300 years of existence. Within a short period of time, no reference
could be found to the AM I system. However, as the next deadline approached
another, more permanent delay was needed. At this point, the Venerable
Bede entered the picture with the creation of the Anno Domini calendar,
based on the work of Dionysius Exiguos, a monk who created the system in
525 as a way to measure the date of Easter. The problem with this system
is three-fold: the birth of Christ was most likely postdated by four to
seven years, rendering calendrical references to a precise date awkward;
as the concept of the zero had yet to reach Europe, there is a no gap between
1 BC and 1 AD where one would expect to find a zero; and finally, the first
birthday of Christ would have been just before 2 AD, thus meaning the millennium
would truly change at the end of the year 1000 or 2000, not at the start.
Though this system was inherently flawed in actually placing the birth
of Christ (thus making exact predictions of dates rather difficult), within
a short time it became the dominant measure of time in the Christian world.
Interestingly enough, Charlemagne, the greatest ruler in post-Roman Europe,
was crowned on Christmas day in the year 800, a symbolic act that, given
the AD II dating system, could be interpreted in as the beginning of the
earthly kingdom of God in retrospect, yet at the time, little, if any emphasis
was placed upon the act. From the data above, it is clear that the Church
openly acted in order to prevent their calendar from triggering an apocalyptic
panic. While the use of images of the final days manifesting themselves
in the modern world was commonplace throughout this era, this is a common
ploy used by the Church in order to encourage people to come and repent
as well as embrace the religion they have made such an important part of
their lives. Another important concept to mention is that the common man
had no real concept of the date. Life did not revolve as it does today
around the exact date and time. Simply the seasons were required for the
life of an average peasant. Only if one came into contact with a member
of the Church would he or she be able to have access to knowledge about
the date, as only in monasteries was the date kept track of. Another problem
with the Anno Domini system was that the year began and ended on different
dates across the continent. For example, in Rome the new year began on
December 25, in Florence on March 25, in Venice on March 1, and in France
on Easter. The date was clearly not a consistent measure of time as of
yet, which did not present any problem as the day and year were of no significant
importance to the average person. From all of the above, we are presented
with a situation at the year 1000 in which the Church was again faced with
the potential for a millennial crisis given the Anno Domini calendrical
system.
Did anything happen among the people of Europe at the year 1000? Or was it simply just another year?
Either follow the above links to other pages dealing with the Year 1000, or head back to the Main Page.