This article expands upon issues with Egyptian timelines, ancient sources, archeology, dendrochronology, and radiocarbon dating. The primary source for this article is . This is a short article which serves as an introductory paper to issues with chronology.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
“The worst difficulty is the total absence of a reliable system of chronology. …the different systems of modern scholars lack any solid foundation and date…” – The International Cyclopaedia: A Compendium of Human Knowledge, Volume 5 [p.295-296]
The dating of Egyptian timelines is the first issue with chronology which is brought up by Fomenko.
Some of the German datings he gives for the reign of King Menes vary as follows:
Bunsen – 3,623 BC
Lepsius – 3,892 BC
Lauth – 4,157 BC
Unger – 5,613 BC
Boeckh  – 5,702 BC
As can be seen above, Menes’ reign has been dated by these men as recently as 3,623 BC (5,642 years ago) and as late as 5,702BC (7,721 years ago). This provides a 2,079 year difference in a timescale of now 7,721 years. These years account for 26.9 percent of the whole scale, being 2,079 years out of 7,721.
Is this difference the case amongst the datings of other scholars? The difference above pales in comparison to the following. Below is a list that contains the dates for Menes’ reign given by French scholars:
Palmer (6) – 2224 BC
Wilkinson (7) – 2320 BC
Andrzejewsky (8) – 2850 BC
Meyer – (9) 3180 BC
Chabas (10) – 4000 BC
Mariette (11) – 5004 BC
Champollion – 5867 BC
As can be seen above, Menes’ reign has been dated by these men as recently as 2,224BC (4,243 years ago) and as late as 5,867BC (7,886 years ago). This provides a 3,642 year margin in a timescale of now 7,886 years. This margin accounts for over 45 percent of the whole scale, being 2,224 years out of 7,721. The margin of leeway for when the reign may have been is hardly conclusive.
Conclusions; this is an obvious problem for chronology. The academically accepted dates may be based upon sketchy premises. The error margins are noticeably large for gaging a precise date.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
The second issue with chronology that we discuss is the dating of “ancient” sources. These ‘post-“dark age”‘ sources may not be as legitimate as some believe. The majority of manuscripts appear during the Renaissance. In this section, we discuss the works of Tacitus (13), Cicero (14), and Vitruvius (15).
Hochart (16) and Ross (17) suggested in the second half of the 19th century that Poggio was the true author of Tacitus’ book, ‘History’. However, the author of (0) does note that they believe Tacitus’ book to be only a partial forgery. Poggio is famous in some circles for “rediscovering and recovering” a great number of manuscripts. Sadly, for those interested in the history of these manuscripts, there is a considerable lack of information regarding how Poggio had acquired them.
According to (0), there was an uprise of interest in Cicero in the 1400s. Reportedly, in 1420, Gasparino Barzizza had decided to “fill the gaps” of Cicero for the “sake of consequentiality”. Luckily for Barzizza, a “complete text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero” was discovered in an Italian town named Lodi around the same time that he had set out on his quest to complete the works of Cicero. It is reported that Barzizza and his students quickly obtained the manuscript, translated the ancient text, and produced a readable copy. This is the copy on which today’s copies are based. The reason why nobody has gone back to make new translations of the “complete text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero” may be due to the fact that the manuscript was returned to Lodi where it disappeared. There has been no trace of it since 1428.
It can may be assumed that when Barzizza set out on his quest to “fill the gaps” that the complete text had not yet been discovered. If we assume that the complete text was discovered in 1420, the same year Barzizza set out, then we may lay the claim that this newly discovered document was known for 8 years before it disappears back into the abyss to never be seen again. Could this manuscript have been a hoax that was created to give more legitimacy to Barzizza’s personal works? Perhaps it truly was a copy of Cicero’s complete texts, authored by someone who at one point had a complete collection of Cicero’s originals or copies? I may expand upon these questions in a later publication.
The last detail that I will mention pertaining to Cicero is about his name. The consonant root of ‘Cicero’ is ‘TsTsR’. It just so happens that the consonant root of the Arabic reading of ‘Barzizza’ is similar, being ‘TsTsRB’.
Vitruvius’ ‘De Architectura’ (20) was discovered in 1497. His book contains extremely precise astronomical information. In fact, there is a notable 15th century humanist who, in his writings, happens to sometimes word for word write the same exact words as Vitruvius had. This humanist is Leon Battista Alberti. He died over two decades prior to the discovery of Vitruvius’ document in 1497. Alberti is reportedly an architect who created a style very similar to the style of Vitruvius. Allegedly both of these men were authors and architects, but did both of these men actually exist? I may expand upon these questions in a later publication.
Conclusions; this is an obvious problem for chronology. The origins of allegedly ancient documents are sketchy. The three ancient authors identified above all share significant counterparts that lived in the 14th-15th centuries, which may actually be the “ancient authors” themselves.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
The third issue with chronology that we discuss is archeology. The current methods are greatly based upon the chronology created by Scaliger (which has been shown to be highly inaccurate). This issue is somewhat self-explanatory but I will briefly expand upon it anyways;
From our primary source for this article (0), we find reports of a barrow that was examined and dated with precision to the epoch of the 9th-12th century. To the surprise of the examiners, scattered amongst the bones, they found coins from the 1800s. This may be due to the fact that sometimes the archeological methods are not as precise as some may believe them to be. A barrow from the 1800s was dated to the epoch between the 800s and 1100s, incorrectly dating it by 700 to 1000 years. This is a barrow that is less than 200 years old that has been dated to be 700 to 1000 years old because of methods that are based upon a faulty chronology.
Another example from our primary source is the excavation of a different barrows. The examiners were sure that they had been analyzing a barrow from the Bronze Age (22) until ceramics from the 1700s monkey-wrenched their find. These ceramics were found inside the barrow that were sealed inside along with everything else. It is reported that the only reason this barrow was dated to the Bronze Age is because it had an absence of Iron and steel artifacts. If we refer to the Near East Bronze Age datings from (22), we can see that the Bronze Age is considered to be between the years around 3300BC to 1200BC. This means that this borrow from the 1700s was misdated by around 2900 to 5000 years. This was a misdating of around 3000 years on a barrows less than 300 years old.
Conclusions; this is an obvious problem for chronology. The current archeological dating methods seem to be poorly designed. These very methods can sometimes give dates that are five to ten times older than the object being dated (300 year old barrow dated to 3000 years old).
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
The fourth issue with chronology is dendrochronology. Dendrochronology (23) is a modern method of dating that claims to be able to independently date artifacts based on information from trees. This method, along with the archeological method, relies upon the faulty chronology of Scaliger. According to (23), the current span of dating into the past is a bit over 11,000 years. According to (0), which is arguably much more likely, the current span of dating is closer to around 1,000 years. There are many issues with dendrochronology identified in (24). This method is affected by many things of which we have no way of knowing about and the precision of the dating is dependent on the collations of the scale being used. In other words, it is sketchy.
Conclusion; this is an issue for chronology. Dendrochronology can be unreliable. It is dependent on a chronology which is established; where if dates of the chronology are moved, the scale of dendrochronology will move.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
The fifth and final issue with chronology which we discuss is radiocarbon dating. As with dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating is also subject to a plethora of influences of which we currently have no way of determining. Also similar to dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating can be unreliable for datings beyond 1000 years old. As with the archeological mishaps, radiocarbon dating can also lead to errors in dating exceed the age of the object by ten times. (0)
This first example is a castle that is known to have been built 738 years ago. After examining the results of a test upon a sample from this castle, it was determined that this castle was actually 7,370 years old. This is ten years shy of exactly 10 times the actual age of the building.
The second example is of seals that had just been shot and then radiocarbon dated. The seal which had just been shot by the hunters proved to be 1.300 years old, according to the radiocarbon dating methods. This is an exponentially greater age of dating than the actual age of the object. These same seals were mummified for thirty years and then related. This time they proved to be 4,600 years old. This is well over ten times older than the actual age of the animals. The thirty year difference in dating is equivalent to 3,300 years in the results, again, well over 10 times the actual time that has passed.
Conclusion; this is an issue for chronology. Radiocarbon dating can be unreliable. This method, along with other methods, are sometimes dependent upon a chronology which has already been established.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Egyptian timelines, ancient sources, archeology, dendrochronology, and radiocarbon dating all can present issues in establishing chronology.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
This article contains a list of zodiacs which have been analyzed in Fomenko’s New Chronology. The zodiacs are ordered based on the dates that they allegedly reveal. If the zodiac’s abbreviation is followed by two ‘*’, this means that two dates are available for that specific zodiac. If the zodiac’s abbreviation is followed by three ‘*’, this means that three dates are available for that specific zodiac. The discoverers of these dates have noted which dates are more likely on some of the multiples, some have been marked accordingly. All dates are AD. There is an alphabetical key that names the zodiacs in the second part of this article. Links to expanded articles are attached to the abbreviations. An abbreviation with ‘!’ after it means that there was no abbreviation provided so I created one for it.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
SP** - August 14-16, 969 SN - August 14-16, 1007 MT - August 14-16, 1007 MZ! - 1007 RC** - April 15-16, 1146 SX - June 17-18, 1148 RD - June 16, 1148 AE - 1151 RG - May 17-28, 1166 DL - April 22-26, 1168 OU - September 5-8, 1182 DR - March 20, 1185 YT - September 15, 1186 MB - July 29-August 15, 1200 SP** - August 5-7, 1206 LK - September 14, 1221 P1*** - August 5, 1227 for the outer room ZA! - August 28, 1228 AV - May 15-16, 1230 P2*** - March 24-25, 1240 AD for the inner room AN - February 9-10, 1268 GA - December 8, 1284 NB** - January 31-February 1, 1285 RS** - February 4-5, 1289; most likely KZ - May 6-8, 1308 RC** - April 16, 1325; most likely NB** - January 29-31, 1345 EB - March 31-April 3, 1394 EM - May 6-8, 1404 RP** - October 14-16 1405 FN - May 19, 1421 P1*** - August 10, 1430 for outer room DZ! - April 12-15, 1477 P2*** - April 17, 1477 AP! - October 1, 1486 BL - March 16, 1495 GP - November 17-21, 1513 CN - February 3-4, 1524 VP - February 5-6, 1524 MK - February 10, 1524 PD - March 7, 1524 VP - March 7, 1524 PG - February 9, 1526 DP - February 28, or March 1, 1546 RS** - February 20-21, 1586 AD KL - August 30-September 1, 1624 VA - August 31, 1624 LV - June 12-17, old style 1638 OL*** - August 1-2, 1640 VG - December 21, 1656, or December 31, 1656 FS - June 24, old style 1661 RZ - December 8-9, old style 1664 P1*** - August 2, 1667 for outer room ZP - June 24-30, old style 1670 FR - May 19, old style 1680 FT - October 15, old style 1686 OL*** - August 2 or August 29-30, 1700 - August 2, 1700 more likely P2*** - April 2, 1714 for inner room KT - March 6, 1725 FA - June 5, old style 1741 FZ - July 3-4, old style 1741 RP** - April 23-25, old style 1781 MP** - 1785 MP** - August 11-12, 1843, more likely BRb*** - October 7, 1841 BRc*** - February 15, 1853 BRa*** - November 18, 1861 OL*** - June 27, 1877
The zodiacs listed alphabetically:
AE – of Christ
AN – lower Athribian
AP! – Biblical Book of Apocalypse
AV – upper Athribian
BG – Zodiac of Astronomy in the chambers of Pope Alexander Borgia
BL – Bayeux Tapestry
BR – Bruges’ Zodiac
CN – painting of the second Tiburtine room of Villa d’Este
DL – Long Dendera
DP – of Henry II and Diana Poitier
DR – Round Dendera
DZ! – Dante’s Zodiac
EB – Big Church of Esna
EM – Small Church of Esna
FA – of Jove on the carved stone
FN – of Phaeton
FR, FS, FT- of the Scythian chamber of dukes D’Este in Ferrara, in Italy
FZ – of Falconetto from Mantua
GA – of Gemma Augustus
GP – of Heracles
KL – in the portrait of Johann Kleberger by Dürer
KT – of grandson of the Yellow imperator, Xian-Yuan-Shi
KZ – church in Herment
LK – Leo of Commagene
LV – of Louvre
MB – Zodiac of Olympus
MK – in the picture of Carlo Maratta “Apollo chasing Daphne”
MP – mosaics of Raphael in chapel of Chigi of the church of Maria del Popolo in Rome
MT – Metternich stela
MZ! – Zodiac of Mithras
NB – “with dressed Nut”
OL – of Olympians in the villa of Barbaro in Maser
OU – Tomb of Ramses VII in Thebes
PD – of a mediaeval baptistery in Padua
PG – of Ivan the Terrible
P1+P2 – Tomb of Petosiris
RC – Tomb of Ramses IV
RD – Tomb of Ramses IX
RG – Copenhagen golden horn
RP – from the Chamber of Court in Padua
RS – Tomb of Ramses VI
RZ – Zodiac of Marcus Aurelius
SN – Tomb of Senenmut
SP – Tomb of Seti I
SX – Second zodiac of Senenmut
VA – in the hall of Cupid and Psyche
VG – on the ceiling of the hall of Galatea
VP – of Alexander the Great and Roxanne in the hall of Prospect
YT – of the ascension of the Virgin
ZA! – Zodiac of Astronomy
ZP – on the ceiling of the Hall of Pontifexes in Vatican
Below are the books about the above datings followed by a list of the zodiacs they contain in them. There are 55 total.
The New Chronology of Egypt (2007): DL, DR, EB, EM, AV+AN, BR, OU, P1+P2, SP, SN, KZ, RS, RC. (15 total)
Ancient Zodiacs of Egypt and Europe (2009): MT, NB, RZ, LV, LK, MZ!, BL, RG. (8 total)
Russian and Italian Zodiacs (2009): SX, RD, AE, PG, FA, GA, DP, PD, ZA!, FZ, FR, FS, FT, RP, GP. (15 total)
Number of the Beast (2009): AP!
Vatican (2010): BG, OL, MP, KT. (4 total)
Divine Comedy on the Eve of the World’s End (2012): DZ!
Dr. Faust (2014): VZ
Roksolana (2019): VG, VA, VP, MK, CN, KL, YC, FN, GPR, MB. (10 total)
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
(1) – http://chronologia.org/astronomical_dating.html
This article establishes connections and correlations between the Odin character and the Christ character. This article is the second and main article of a two part series. The first article, which is a primer for this one, is titled ‘Odin as Christ? Primer’. Sources from the first article will not be repeated here unless they are significant. The main sources I will be referencing are Chapter 5 of ‘The Beginning of Horde Russia’ by A. T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky (0), ‘Poetic Edda’ translated by H.A. Bellows (1), and ‘Heimskringla’ translated by A. Finlay and A. Faulkes (2).
The contents of this article contain firstly a brief introduction to the cited books of poems, secondly a brief account of notable historical events, thirdly the connections between the Odin character and the Christ character, and fourthly and finally the connections between the Germanic-Scandinavian’s End of the World epic to the Christian Apocalypse.
A few notable details from (1, pg. xxi – xxii); Old Norse literature allegedly covers the years around 850 – 1300AD. From around 875 to 1100 was the “great spontaneous period of oral literature”. The bulk of the Old Norse literature was written down and gathered mostly between 1150 and 1250. Here we can see 200 – 300 years of supposed oral transmission of information that is eventually followed by writing it down.
The first book of interest is the ‘Poetic Edda’ (1). The ‘Poetic Edda’ is a collection of Old Norse poems. H.A. Bellows informs us that Brynjolfur Sveinsson discovered a manuscript in 1643 that later went on to be known as the ‘Poetic Edda’. This is a supporting premise for the conclusion established in ‘Odin as Christ? Primer’ that the Icelandic and Scandinavian chronicles start appearing out of obscurity only in the 17th century. Our source also reports of 300 years of “scholarly struggles” concerning the topic of the ‘Edda’. I imagine this 300 years is the 300 hundred years from around 1650 to the early 1900s. This means that the struggle has now been going on for some 400 odd years. They report further that the ‘Edda’’s “history is strangely mysterious”, and that they do not know when the ‘Edda’ were composed, where they were composed, who gathered them together, when they gathered them together, or “what an ‘Edda’ is”. – (1, pg. xv).
The second book of interest is the ‘Heimskringla’ (2). This book is also a collection of Old Norse poems. The ‘Heimskringla’ supposedly covers the chronology of 793 – 1263AD. It is commonly believed to be authored by Snorri Sturluson, but no authorship is certain. Please see my article ‘Odin as Christ? Primer’ for more information on Sturluson. On page vii of (2), we find a report which states that the earliest work which credits Sturluson is a 16th century translation of the ‘Heimskringla’ which is based on a lost manuscript. On page xii of (2), we find a report which states that the earliest known surviving manuscript is a single leaf that dates back allegedly to 1240AD. The whole of ‘Heimskringla’ is preserved in 17th century transcripts. This book falls in line with the rest of the appearances out of obscurity.
Ari’s ‘Íslendingabók’ (3) is considered “the oldest surviving Icelandic vernacular text”. The wikipedia reports that our favorite bishop for this series, Brynjolfur Sveinsson, used the services of priest Jón Erlendsson in Villingaholt to make a copy of ‘Íslendingabók’. The bishop did not like the first copy and requested that a second one be made. The second one still survives today at the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies. However, the first copy disappeared without a trace and has never yet been found. What was on this original copy? We may only be able to speculate.
Let us continue with a brief account of history. (0) reports that prior to the 17th century, there were massive bonfires upon which books, maps, chronicles, and more were thrown in large quantities. The collection of burnings on which I focus are the English Church burnings in 1525 (4), the Cremona burning in 1559 (5), the burnings of the Mayan Sacred texts in 1562 (6), Martin Luther’s German Bible burnt in 1624 (7), and Bishop Dembowski’s burnings of 1757 (8). I cover these burnings as to provide insight into a history which you may not be familiar with, but is altogether relevant for this discussion.
The first burning mentioned is by order of the English Church in 1525 (4). This takes place allegedly some 200 years prior to when our books of interest surface out of obscurity. This was a banning and burning carried out against Tyndale’s Bible. From what I’ve read, Tyndale’s Bible was banned and burned for being considered heretical to the Catholic beliefs. A notable figure such as the Renaissance humanist Thomas More maintained the notion that Tyndale had “purposefully mistranslated the ‘ancient’ texts in order to promote anti-clericism…”. Luckily for history, the burnings were not a complete success and some copies of this Bible have survived.
The second burning mentioned is the burning in Cremona in 1559 (5). This takes place allegedly some 100 years prior to when our books of interest surface out of obscurity. The main character of this burning is the “Jew gone Christian” Joshua dei Cantori. Due to an alleged dispute with the head of the Talmudical School of Cremona, our character reaps revenge on the headmaster by claiming the Talmud was blasphemous against the Christian faith. The claims were not made without consequence. Some 10,000 – 15,000 Hebrew books were burned at Cremona in 1559 as a result of the actions of Joshua dei Cantori. This man supposedly met his end by assassination in the streets of Cremona.
The third burning mentioned is the burning of the Mayan Sacred texts in 1562 (6). This takes place across the Atlantic allegedly some 100 years prior to when our books of interest surface out of obscurity. Diego de Landa Calderón was a Bishop of Yucatán in the 16th century. He had been informed of Roman Catholic Mayans who had continued worshipping idols. In response to this, he ordered an inquisition. This event commenced in Mani and ended with a ceremony on July 12, 1562. The ceremony in 1562 is significant because allegedly 27 Mayan codices and around 5000 Mayan ‘cult’ images were destroyed in a fire.
The fourth burning mentioned is the burning of Martin Luther’s German Bible in 1624 (7). This burning takes place in time closer to when our books of interest surface out of obscurity than any of the other burnings mentioned. It is notable because Odin is mentioned in Old Germanic literature as well as the Icelandic and Scandinavian literatures. While this burning may not be as extreme as some of the previous, this may be due to the fact mentioned by (0) about the fury of the first wave of historical reformers dying down. Martin Luther’s German Bible of 1534 was burned in Catholic-majority areas of Germany in 1624.
The fifth and final burning mentioned is a burning in 1757 by Bishop Nicholas Dembowski (8). This event takes place some 100 years after our books of interest surface out of obscurity. It may be worth noting again that although this burning is not as extreme as some of the earlier ones, this may in fact be due to the fury of the first wave of historical reformers dying down. Dembowski order that all copies of the Talmud in his diocese be seized, dragged through the streets in mockery, and then finally burned. Supposedly around 1000 Talmud copies were burnt in a pit because of Dembowski’s order. We can see that even some 100 years after our books of interest surface out of obscurity, burning books in large amounts was still a practice.
These five burnings were picked out of over 27 burnings and bans which I looked into while researching this topic. The accounts are brief and are suggested as starting points for further study in the area concerning the destruction of history. Conclusions drawn from the 5 burnings; (0) is justified in claiming that massive bonfires which destroyed history had taken place prior to 17th century. We may conclude that some people took historical narratives seriously enough to completely destroy anywhere between 10 – 15,000 documents in an attempt to support their theories. This concludes the portion pertaining to historical events.
Now for the fun part. Could the god Odin be partially reflecting stories of the character Jesus Christ from the Gospels? Let us consult (1) for information about the origins of the ‘Edda’. On pages xviii-xix, it is reported that the poems were the works of many men, from many different times. It is claimed that it is clear that most of them survived through the oral tradition over multiple generations before they were finally recorded by being written down. You may recall from earlier that the bulk of the Old Norse literature was written down and gathered mostly between 1150 and 1250. On the same pages most recently cited, you may find the claim that Christianity was accepted in the Norse world in the 11th century. This places the acceptance of Christianity in this area some 150 -250 years prior to when the bulk of the literature was written down.
Do the scholars believe that there is much influence from Christianity on the oral stories of the Norse? The answer is seemingly “no”. The “…mythological poems seem strongly marked by pagan sincerity…” and “…it seems likely that … the poems dealing with the gods definitely antedate the year 1000”. In other words, the gods could not have been inspired by Christian stories because Christianity was not there at the time. As we have concluded in this series’ first article, these histories only appear in the 17th century, and as we have concluded in this article, the introduction of Christianity arrives 2-3 centuries before most of the stories were written. Although this sounds similar to the stories of the origins of the Gospels, I will save further comments on that pattern for later articles.
Who is Odin? (9)
Odin is a god that is commonly “associated with wisdom, healing, death, royalty, the gallows, knowledge, battle, sorcery, poetry, frenzy, and the runic alphabet.” Over two hundred names have been given to him, some of which can be found @ (10). Odin is often depicted with one eye and a long beard, wearing a cloak and a broad hat, and wielding a spear. His company often includes two wolves and two ravens. He also rides an eight-legged flying horse. It is also reported that Odin does not eat food, for he is wholly sustained on wine alone.
The first apparent connection between Odin and Christ are the titles that mark them both as Creators of the Universe. You may find in the book ‘Tsar of the Slavs’ (11) that Christ is occasionally given the roles of creating the universe. Christ as Creator of the Universe is still echoed in many churches today that maintain a three-in-one godhead.
The second apparent connection between Odin and Christ are the story elements pertaining to hanging on a cross/tree and being pierced with a spear. I am referencing stanzas 139-146 from the Hovamol found in (1). Stanza 139 is Odin’s speech about hanging on a windy tree for nine full nights. He wounds himself with a spear and offers himself to himself in order to obtain the runes. Stanza 140 mentions that Odin shrieks before falling back to where he originated. Stanza 141 mentioned that Odin received a drink of ‘goodly mead’.
For those familiar with the Crucifixion found in the Gospel, you may have already noticed some similarities. I will highlight these similarities so that all members of this audience may learn of them. Christ’s crucifixion portrays Jesus Christ having been stabbed in the ribs by ’The Holy Lance’ while being crucified on a cross. This may be related to the stories of Odin hanging on a tree and being stabbed by a spear. Christ is hanging on the Cross to sacrifice himself (God the Son) to himself (God the Father) to save the world. This may be related to the stories of Odin offering himself to himself to save the world. Christ drinks vinegar from a sponge before his death in the Gospels. This may be related to the stories of Odin drinking the mead in stanza 141.
In another book from the ‘Poetic Edda’, ‘Grimnismol’, we find the story of Odin bound between two pillars of blazing fires. This may be related to the stories of Christ being hung between two crosses holding criminals. Another interesting note that I found is in stanza 40, where the creation of the world in this book seems to me to be close to the story of Kala Purusha.
The third apparent connection between Odin and Christ is the one eye of Odin and the damaged eye of Christ. Please reference ‘Tsar of Slavs’ for information pertaining to Christ’s eye being gouged out. The damaged eye of Christ may be preserved in Egyptian mythology as the eye of Ra, or the eye of Udjet. Relations to the All Seeing Eye of God and the Eye of Aries have been made. Matthew 5:29 has an interesting passage about Christ and eyes as well.
The fourth apparent connection between Odin and Christ is that they are both reported to have been very tall, as well as bearded. They both are described as dressing similarly as well, where Odin wears a cloak, Christ wears a tunic.
The fifth apparent connection between Odin and Christ is Odin’s Gold ring and Christ’s severed hand. In the book ‘Tsar of the Slavs’, it is shown that the blood dripping from Christ’s severed hand may have been distorted into the Norse myths by honoring this as ‘dripping golden rings’ from Odin’s hand. This notion is supported further by the commemoration of Christ’s death on the 9th hour and Odin’s death on the 9th day. The blood of Christ is still today an important topic, so it can be said that this connection is important as well. There are many old icons and paintings that show angels collecting Christ’s blood. You can even find and visit some cathedrals today that claim to have drops of Christ’s blood.
The sixth apparent connection between Odin and Christ is their mutual love for wine. As shown is ‘Tsar of the Slavs’, this love may be echoes of the invention of Russian vodka by Christ. Where the Biblical Christ could turn water to wine, the god Odin only drank wine that never ran dry. The connection of wine and Christ is prominent in the Last Supper and sometimes is honored even today in the practice of communion.
The seventh apparent connection between Odin and Christ is Odin’s octopus horse and Christ’s donkeys. Where Odin rides an eight-legged horse into Valhalla, Christ rides two donkeys into Jerusalem. According to (0), the Church Slavonic Gospel may claim it is a donkey and a stallion which Christ rides into Jerusalem. Mention of laying clothes in the road may be reflected in (12) as the criss cross pattern below Odin and his steed.
The eighth connection between Odin and Christ is that both may be referred to as the ‘Father of Poetry’ and the ‘Father of All Knowledge’. In ‘Tsar of the Slavs’, it is shown that Christ may have authored the poetic work known as the Psalter. As mentioned before, Odin is considered the inventor and keeper of the magic runes, as well as being the ‘Patron of History’. Christ has been shown in ‘Tsar of the Slavs’ to have been represented as Euclid, the founder of geometry. These are the reasons why Odin/Christ may be considered the ‘Father of Poetry’ and the ‘Father of All Knowledge’.
The ninth and final connection is one put forth by me that I am not aware of seeing anywhere else. Odin is accompanied often by his wolves, and sometimes by his ravens ‘which bring him knowledge’. There are apparent connections between Odin and his wolves to Christ and his cynocephaly. Both types of dogs are seen ‘guarding’ Christ, although one pair be wolves and the other be dog-headed men. Another bell that rang was Noah’s raven and dove. Could there be some relation between Noah’s birds and Odin’s birds? Records mention that Odin cares much more for one of his ravens over the other. Noah also pays more mind to one bird over the other. These are loose connections, but arguably relevant. Bells ring of Midas’ touch as well.
I will summarize the connections by number for convenience;
1 – Both are sometimes considered as Creator of the Universe
2 – Both are pierced by a spear while hanging
3 – Both are reported to have a damaged eye
4 – Both are reported to have been tall and bearded
5 – Both are reported to ‘drip’ on the 9th
6 – Both are infamous for their stories of wine
7 – Both are reported to ride on eight legs
8 – Both are considered the ‘Father of Poetry’ and ‘Father of Knowledge’
9 – Both are reported to have ‘guard dogs’
This concludes the portion dedicated to showing the connections between Odin and Christ.
Now we focus on the ‘Younger Edda’’s account of the end of the world and note that it is quite similar to the Christian’s apocalypse. Both accounts tell us of a brutal destruction of the world where the sun and stars are darkened, earthquakes ravage the lands, and the destruction only ends with the establishment of a new paradise. Both accounts also mention the important sounding of horns. We can also note the apparent connections between the serpent Satan being caste into the hell and Odin imprisoning the World Serpent, where both ‘evil’ characters resurface for a final fight in the end of the world.
We may ask ‘Who came first?’. Christ or Odin? Odin or Christ? If there are no Christian elements in the old records that contain the Norse mythologies, then is it that these Norse elements have influenced the Christian stories in such a dramatic way?
Conclusions; the records that are commonly believed to be solely Pagan are in fact Christian in origin. The Norse God Odin is a partial reflection of Christ. The Gospels and both ‘Edda’ have records of the same events. The ‘Edda’ holds more distorted versions of the same real events that are recorded in the Gospels.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
This article will serve as an informative reference for the literary sources used in the article titled ‘Odin as Christ?’. This primer will briefly cover some important Icelandic and Scandinavian history. ‘Odin as Christ?’ is an article that is based primarily on Chapter 5 of ‘The Beginning of Horde Russia’ by A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky (0). They primarily reference the works of Snorri Sturluson, so with Snorri Sturluson I will start.
Snorri Sturluson is believed to have been an Icelandic historian, poet, and politician who lived in the 12th-13th century, according to (2). He is believed to be the author of the ‘Prose Edda’ (3). The Prose Edda is often believed to have been written in Iceland in the first half of the 13th century. There are seven surviving manuscripts of the Edda; three fragments, and four main manuscripts. These four manuscripts are the Codex Upsaliensis (4), Codex Regius (5), Codex Wormianus (6), and the Codex Boreelianus Rheno-Trajectinus (7). We will return to these manuscripts later in the article.
I was interested to see what types of contemporaries Snorri Sturluson may have had. According to (8), the word “skald” is “generally used for poets who composed at the courts of Scandinavian and Icelandic leaders during the Viking Age and Middle Ages.”. Supposedly there are over 300 known skalds that lived between the 9th-13th centuries.
The oldest known skald is supposedly Bragi Boddason (9). He is believed to have been a 9th century poet of the court. Bragi Boggason is commonly believed to be the author of Ragnarsdrápa (10). Fragments of this poem have been preserved in Sturluson’s ‘Prose Edda’. I have not yet been able to locate the origins (date of discovery/first noted appearance) of this work and will refer to works like this from here on out as “undated”. If you have information on the people or works mentioned in this article, please email me so that I may address myself to the task of updating and enhancing the quality of included information. My belief is that gaining information about the origins of the previous and following skalds is not a quick and easy task, especially for those who are not internet savvy.
Our next skald is Thjodolf (11). He is commonly believed to have been a Norwegian poet who lived around 855 – 930AD. Traditionally, the authorship of ‘Ynglingatal’ (12) is attributed to him. The poem’s composition is believed to have happened between the 9th – 12th centuries. Thjodolf’s poem is cited in the first saga of Snorri’s ‘Heimskringla’ (13), of which was allegedly first translated by Peder Calussøn Friis around 1600. The dating of this document received notable attention allegedly in the 19th century. Concerning its origins, I have labeled it undated.
Thjodolf is also sometimes credited as being the author of ‘Haustlöng’ (14). ‘Haustlöng’ is a poem believed to have been composed around the 10th century and is preserved in the ‘Prose Edda’ of the alleged 13th century. I have labeled ‘Haustlöng’ as undated. Clarification will be provided in the later portion of this article that covers the origins of the ‘Prose Edda’.
Let us continue with the introduction of Egill Skallagrímsson (15). He is commonly believed to have been an Iceland-born poet that lived from around 904 – 995AD. The sole source of information on Egill is ‘Egil’s Saga’ (16). This saga is a fragment of a manuscript which allegedly dates back to 1240AD. The wikipedia article does not have an image of this fragment, but instead shows a picture from an allegedly 17th century manuscript of ‘Egil’s Saga’. I have not yet located the origins of this person or the work which reference them. Due to no reference for dating of this manuscript in (16), I label the manuscript, and Egill, undated.
Gunnlaugr Ormstunga is our next poet and is commonly believed to have been born around 983AD (17). His life events are allegedly contained within ‘Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu’ (18). The saga was allegedly composed in the 13th century. A notable fact about this saga is that it was the first of the Icelanders’ sagas to be published in a scholarly edition. This publication was printed in 1775 with a Latin translation and commentary. It is not yet clear to me where this saga was before 1775. I label this manuscript, and the character it tells us about, undated.
One last character before returning to Snorri Sturluson; Þórir jökull Steinfinnsson (19). Steinfinnsson was allegedly executed, along with five others, around 1238AD. The 6 names are recorded in the ‘Saga of Icelanders’ (20). This saga has been recognized to make up a fair portion of the Sturlunga saga (21). The latter saga is preserved on “two defective Western Icelandic parchments” that are believed to be from the 14th century, and a manuscript from the alleged 17th century that is based on the “two defective parchments”. The Saga of Icelanders, the Sturlunga saga, and Steinfinnsson, seem to me to each have foggy origins. Due to this, I label them undated.
This concludes the brief review of poets relevant to Snorri.
Now we return to our original poet, Snorri Sturluson. As mentioned before, he is believed to be the author of the ‘Prose Edda’. We will now focus on the manuscripts which comprise the ‘Edda’.
The first manuscript is titled ‘Codex Upsaliensis’ (4). The earliest mention that I found of this manuscript is when Bishop Brynjólfur Sveinsson (22) donates the codex in 1639. Interestingly enough, this bishop was the one who in 1643 gave the name ‘Edda’ to the collection of Old Norse mythological and heroic poems, which is sometimes known as the ‘Poetic Edda’ (23). Shortly after this, in 1650, he requests from all the people residing in his diocese to gift or sell any old manuscripts to the King Frederick the Third. It was a direct result of this request that the important mediaeval Icelandic manuscript ‘Codex Flateyensis’ (24) was discovered. Conclusion; ‘Codex Upsaliensis’ seemingly appears out of obscurity in the 17th century.
The second manuscript is titled ‘Codex Regius’ (5). Prior to this codex arriving into the possession of Brynfólfur Sveinsson in 1643, nothing about its location was known. This is the manuscript which the bishop gifts to King Frederick III of Denmark in 1662. Conclusion; this manuscript appears out of obscurity in the 17th century.
The third manuscript is titled ‘Codex Wormianus’(6). This codex was supposedly written in a Benedictine monastery in Iceland around 1350AD. Ole Worm supposedly received this codex in 1628 from Arngrímur Jónsson. The codex was transferred from Worm’s son to Árni Magnússon in 1706, and is today a part of the Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection (25). Conclusion; this manuscript appears out of obscurity in the 17th century.
The fourth and final manuscript is titled ‘Codex Boreelianus Rheno-Trajectinus’ (7). This manuscript allegedly contains the four Gospels in Greek. There is supposedly no record of how this codex was obtained by Johann Boreel in the early 17th century. It allegedly remained in private care for over a century. Utrecht University has been its holding place since 1830. Conclusion; this manuscript appears out of obscurity in the 17th century.
Given the conclusions above, we may claim that the bulk of the ‘Prose Edda’ appears out of obscurity in the 17th century. Perhaps this is only the case for the ‘Prose Edda’? I mean, there are other manuscripts that are from around the same time (12th-13th centuries) as the ‘Prose Edda’. Below, I will briefly address four additional documents.
The ‘Old Icelandic Homily Book’ (26) and the ‘Old Norwegian Homily Book’ (27) are believed to have been written around the 12th-13th centuries. These two books represent some of the earliest known Old West Norse prose. I found no information about the ‘Old Norwegian Homily Book’’s origins and found that the ‘Old Icelandic Homily Book’ appears out of obscurity in the 17th century. These are both Christian works. Conclusion; at least one of these books appears out of obscurity in the 17th century, while the other alludes revealing its origins altogether.
‘Historia Norwegiæ’ (28) is considered to be one of the synoptic histories of Norway written anonymously in Latin. This manuscript is commonly thought to have been written at the earliest in the 12th-13th centuries. The only copy is allegedly being privately held in Scotland. The earliest record that I could find is Peter Munch’s ‘Symbolæ ad Historiam Antiquiorem Rerum Norwegicarum’ of 1850, where he publishes the manuscript. One notable element from this document is that it mentions both a volcanic eruption and an earthquake. Conclusion; this manuscript appears out of obscurity in the 19th century.
‘Ágrip af Nóregskonungasögum’ (29), along with ‘Historia Norwegiæ’, is considered one of the synoptic histories of Norway. This manuscript is written in Old Norse and is believed to have been written around 1190AD. An Icelandic manuscript supposedly from the early 13th century is the only surviving copy of ‘Ágrip’. The name that I have used for it in my article was first used in 1835. ‘Ágrip’ was translated to Danish in 1834, Latin in 1835, German in 1929, Norwegian in 1936, and English in 1995. Conclusion; this manuscript appears out of obscurity in the 19th century.
I attempted to locate the origins of over 20 other manuscripts which are considered to be important Icelandic and Old Norse literature. The only dates which were readily available were dates of supposed composition. In other words, these documents themselves have been recognized as important, but the dates of their recordings and travels through history are vague to nonexistent. As I am wrapping up this article, I would again like to request from anyone who may be reading this to assist me in creating a concise and accurate synopsis of the documents prior to the early 17th century.
Icelandic and Scandinavian history surfaces out of obscurity only in the 17th century. Snorri Sturluson’s ‘Prose Edda’ surfaces out of obscurity only in the 17th century. The ‘Icelandic and Norwegian Homily Books’, Christian works, both surface out of obscurity only in the 17th century. The two synoptic histories of Norway that I mentioned surface out of obscurity only in the 19th century. There are over twenty other manuscripts of which information on their appearance out of obscurity is not yet easily available. As of now, the years before 1650AD are in question as to what may have actually happened. Again, please email me information that you believe may enhance the quality of this article.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Welcome to ChronologyTruth.wordpress.com. My name is Stephen Sorensen and I have created this website as a way to organize my studies and create an easy way for the public to review them. I began cataloging information on Facebook and have now decided that I wish to expand this catalogue into its own website. If you have a Facebook account, you can join my original project at this link: https://www.FaceBook.com/groups/FomenkoStudies/
If you have read this far, I’d like to welcome you once more. I cherish the time I have here on earth. My wish is that you cherish yours as well and that you’ll join me in uncovering the truth about chronology.
“Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves.” – Dr. Leonard Orr