The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

the entire idea of dividing the ecliptic with 24 evenly spaced solar terms didn't exist yet

 
You are quite wrong. The 24 solar terms were defined sometime around 100 BCE. 

From the Wikipedia page you linked to make this point some months ago:

The modern definition using ecliptic longitudes, introduced by the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., is known as dìngqì fǎ (定氣法; 'steady term method'). Under this method, the determination of solar terms is similar to the astronomical determination of the special cases of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. dates, with different ecliptic longitudes to solve for. One can start with an approximation and then perform a correction using the anomalies and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the sun.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may be used to query for exact times of solar terms.

The older method, called the píngqì fǎ (平氣法; 'equal term method'), simply divides the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. into 24 equal parts.

Shixian calendar was made in collaboration with the Jesuits and relies on Keplerian mechanics; the solar terms were still uneven in 1400. (Unironically, I think time travelling Jesuits would be really cool.)

No, I could not find any source that claimed that people did know what that phrase meant, in 1400 CE or any time later.  Did you?

I mean, it was written in a language every literate person in the empire knew. That doesn't preclude thorny passages, but the presumption in face of the lack of evidence to the contrary is that it was perfectly understandable. I do not understand this need to constantly mystify Classical Chinese.

Scribes, scholars, and students in the Middle Ages would often copy books that they did not understand. 

Archaeologists still often copy inscriptions that they do not understand.

Linguists often write down stories told by natives in languages that they do not understand.

Why do they do it?

Okay, do any of these result in "bringing knowledge of Chinese medicine back to Europe" because it would not seem so to me. I don't understand why you are posing your theory to me as a riddle, either!