Conspiracy Theory: Phantom time hypothesis

[public hermit]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

 

[Nithavela]

What nonsense. The fact that every other civilisation on earth has records for those "phantom years" clearly proves that they happened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

... I've never even heard about this theory.

It's interesting but it sounds kind of phantasmagorical to me ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

... maybe the real question here isn't "does Nicea explain it?," but rather "Are we somehow invested in the idea that Nicea explains it?"

 

[Tom 1]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

This used to happen to me when people claimed I was late for work. I used to point out to them that the 10 minutes or whatever they were talking about never really existed, so I was on time, or even early.

 

[public hermit]

... maybe the real question here isn't "does Nicea explain it?," but rather "Are we somehow invested in the idea that Nicea explains it?"

I learned about this at 9am this morning. I'm not that invested, yet. Lol

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This used to happen to me when people claimed I was late for work. I used to point out to them that the 10 minutes or whatever they were talking about never really existed, so I was on time, or even early.

Why didn't I think of that (maybe I wouldn't have been fired)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I learned about this at 9am this morning. I'm not that invested, yet. Lol

Well, thanks for filling me in on what may be missing in history ... !

 

[public hermit]

Well, thanks for filling me in on what may be missing in history ... !

I like to help people know things they can't know because their false. It's not completely unlike my favorite part about hitting myself in the head with a hammer: stopping.


I have a lot more nonsense to share after this last cup of coffee.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like to help people know things they can't know because their false. It's not completely unlike my favorite part about hitting myself in the head with a hammer: stopping.


I have a lot more nonsense to share after this last cup of coffee.

I just finished my big'o cup'o coffee, so I'm ready for as much non-sense as you want to give us ...

 

[public hermit]

I just finished my big'o cup'o coffee, so I'm ready for as much non-sense as you want to give us ...

I like my steaks extra medium.

 

[Halbhh]

... I've never even heard about this theory.

It's interesting but it sounds kind of phantasmagorical to me ...

We have a winner!

 

[Halbhh]

This used to happen to me when people claimed I was late for work. I used to point out to them that the 10 minutes or whatever they were talking about never really existed, so I was on time, or even early.

Ah! I didn't think of that.

 

[Halbhh]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

Wait a minute. So we have to do the millennium over?

 

[Halbhh]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

More seriously, I have wondered a few times in the last several months about why many seem drawn to conspiracy theories. The why part. What is it that makes them fall into that?

 

[public hermit]

More seriously, I have wondered a few times in the last several months about why many seem drawn to conspiracy theories. The why part. What is it that makes them fall into that?

That's a really good question. I have wondered the same. I reckon there are several reasons. I do think some like the idea that they are "in the know" and are not being fooled like the rest of the population, i.e. sheep who blindly follow. It's like knowing a secret; it makes one feel special, important.

But now conspiracy theories have become politicized, which complicates the importance believing can have. People tend to wrap their self-identity in their political positions, especially these days. In the case of someone whose identity is closely aligned with their political beliefs, conspiracies assumed by that position will take on greater weight.

At any rate, I think what makes it so hard to reason with those who embrace conspiracies is that their reasons for believing are often non-epistemic. They believe because of how being "in the know" makes them feel, or how others in their political group embrace the same conspiracies, or how the conspiracy supports their religious beliefs, etc. Whatever the case, the reasons for believing might not be the result of careful assessment, but something more practical.

Of course, I have no idea if any of that is right. Lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a really good question. I have wondered the same. I reckon there are several reasons. I do think some like the idea that they are "in the know" and are not being fooled like the rest of the population, i.e. sheep who blindly follow. It's like knowing a secret; it makes one feel special, important.

But now conspiracy theories have become politicized, which complicates the importance believing can have. People tend to wrap their self-identity in their political positions, especially these days. In the case of someone whose identity is closely aligned with their political beliefs, conspiracies assumed by that position will take on greater weight.

At any rate, I think what makes it so hard to reason with those who embrace conspiracies is that their reasons for believing are often non-epistemic. They believe because of how being "in the know" makes them feel, or how others in their political group embrace the same conspiracies, or how the conspiracy supports their religious beliefs, etc. Whatever the case, the reasons for believing might not be the result of careful assessment, but something more practical.

Of course, I have no idea if any of that is right. Lol

... I'm just trying to think of the actual practicalities that could be involved in wishing away Charlemagne from the historical record. ... c'mon, brain, think, THINK!!

 

[Halbhh]

That's a really good question. I have wondered the same. I reckon there are several reasons. I do think some like the idea that they are "in the know" and are not being fooled like the rest of the population, i.e. sheep who blindly follow. It's like knowing a secret; it makes one feel special, important.

But now conspiracy theories have become politicized, which complicates the importance believing can have. People tend to wrap their self-identity in their political positions, especially these days. In the case of someone whose identity is closely aligned with their political beliefs, conspiracies assumed by that position will take on greater weight.

At any rate, I think what makes it so hard to reason with those who embrace conspiracies is that their reasons for believing are often non-epistemic. They believe because of how being "in the know" makes them feel, or how others in their political group embrace the same conspiracies, or how the conspiracy supports their religious beliefs, etc. Whatever the case, the reasons for believing might not be the result of careful assessment, but something more practical.

Of course, I have no idea if any of that is right. Lol

Oh man, so many just picking what to believe because it only makes them more comfortable or feeling to be special or in the in-group? ah, man...

 

[Petros2015]

More seriously, I have wondered a few times in the last several months about why many seem drawn to conspiracy theories. The why part. What is it that makes them fall into that?

podcast cited here was enjoyable and covers a bit of that

Ong's Hat, anyone?

 

[public hermit]

... I'm just trying to think of the actual practicalities that could be involved in wishing away Charlemagne from the historical record. ... c'mon, brain, think, THINK!!

The guy who came up with it is into revisionist history according to that wiki link. I mean, what a boon to have discovered that so many people had been fooled by the supposed existence of the Carolingian period! The practical benefits, assuming many people came on board, would be enormous! One's ego would benefit. It would be like discovering that Kierkegaard's writings were really authored by his brother Peter! Even if it weren't true, having tens of followers would feel great! Lol