If Russian Mathematician Anatoly Fomenko is correct about the gross inaccuracies of the currently accepted calendar and chronology, what does it say about the figure on which both are based?
For more on Fomenko's claims and methods, read What is the New Chronology?
Jesus Christ: Born 1152, Died 1185 AD
One of the most controversial claims from the field of New Chronology is the idea that the Christ figure can be traced back to the 12th century AD rather than any earlier. According to the currently accepted historical timeline, Christ was born around 0 AD and crucified around 33 AD. However, as the New Chronology points out, the belief that Jesus was born 2,000 years ago only emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries when the modern version of the Christian Bible took shape. Before that, Christians widely believed that the events described in the New Testament occurred much closer to their own time.
Depictions of Christ During the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance.
Christ, the Nativity, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection were among the most popular themes for artists during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. However, a striking observation can be made when examining early depictions of Christ: the complete absence of anything resembling the "ancient" Roman Empire. Instead, these early artworks consistently portray Christ within the context of the Middle Ages, featuring buildings, castles, clothing, medieval knights, and even firearms, all representative of that era. Here are just a few examples:
Critics may argue that we witness the ignorance of painters during the Middle Ages, as the concept of the distant "ancient" world was supposedly entirely lost to everyone except a fortunate few monks during the Dark Ages. However, when we examine the circumstances surrounding the miraculous rediscovery of the so-called "ancient" Roman Empire during the Renaissance, after hundreds of years of forgetfulness, a sense of suspicion arises when viewed from the perspective of the New Chronology. Fortunately, there is substantial evidence suggesting that the figure of Christ emerged less than 1,000 years ago for the first time.
Astronomical Dating the Life of Jesus Christ
Many of the oldest known versions of the Bible contain numerous references to astronomical events. One such example that has survived various edits and rewrites is the Star of Bethlehem, the miraculous celestial beacon that guided the Magi to the newborn Christ. Additionally, biblical accounts of Christ's crucifixion are accompanied by the occurrence of a total solar eclipse, just hours before his death, providing a 33-year gap between the two events. If modern astronomical dating were applied to confirm the dates in the New Testament, these two events would be significant.
Various depictions of a solar eclipse occurring during the Crucifixion.
Modern astronomical dating techniques have the capability to determine when celestial events resembling the Star of Bethlehem, such as a comet or supernova, could have taken place. Moreover, if it can be established that a full solar eclipse occurred around 33 years later, as described in biblical accounts of the Crucifixion, we would then have a scientific basis for dating the life of Christ. An intriguing case can be found in the modern astronomical dating of the supernova that created the Crab Nebula in the Taurus constellation, estimated to have occurred between 1150-1154 AD. There are numerous firsthand accounts from the Middle Ages that describe phenomena identical to what was recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, the appearance of Halley's Comet during the same timeframe would undoubtedly have drawn considerable attention to the sky in the early 1150s AD.
Read Anatoly Fomenko's analysis on the astronomical dating of the Nativity here.
As for the eclipse, did one occur approximately 33 years later? Yes! Astronomical records do, in fact, indicate a full solar eclipse on May 1st, 1185 AD. Furthermore, the eclipse was very close to where the Star of Bethlehem had appeared around 1150 AD.
Read Anatoly Fomenko's analysis on the eclipse during the Crucifixion here.
Dates Outside the Gregorian Calendar
Prior to the widespread adoption of the current Gregorian Calendar, the numbering of years from the birth of Christ during the Middle Ages (and as late as the 1800s) appears to be significantly off by nearly 1,000 years. Were all these chronicles incorrect? It is possible that these chroniclers considered themselves to be living only a few hundred years after the events of the New Testament, and this was common knowledge for them. Similar to today, Christians during the Middle Ages based their calendar on the number of years since the birth of Christ. It was customary to add an "x" for "Christ" or an "i" or "j" for "Jesus" before the current year. In some cases, these designations were omitted entirely. Below are a few examples from the period between 1400 and 1850, according to the current calendar. However, these dates seem to indicate a count of only a few hundred years since Christ's birth.
As you can see, it would not be too difficult to "mistranslate" or "correct" these dates to make them fit within the traditional BC/AD chronology.
Read Anatoly Fomenko's analysis on the historical dating of Christ here.
Comments