Radical chronology revision

[ott]

poggio.jpg (309.5 KiB) Viewed 1028 times

Interesting little discussion on the Wiki-Talk-page about the ‘discoverer’ of ancient (?) manuscripts, Poggio Bracciolini from Florence (1380-1459).

For those who understand German I recommend the half-hour video “Die Ära Poggio”.

[Nordic]

In defence of the revised chronology, in regards to Bible work the theory explains very well:

• explain why OT beginning and NT ending are written to mirror each other

• explain why the Biblical genealogy year lengths are modelled on medieval European dynasties.

It does not explain that well:

• why there are Buddhist materials (e.g. Ashoka's missionaries or Bock saga Jesus)

• why the author used a non-Berossussian version of Sumerian King List (SKL)

• why the author used in addition knowledge of Frá Fornjóti and Bock saga (i.e. was Bock saga Jesus).

The Egyptians used hieroglyphs along the European scripts (Greek, Roman era Latin). What about Sumerian clay tablet texts? To my eyes Sumerian clay tablets and European scripts are distant to each other in regards to manner of information storage. As per the standard chronology, no medieval scribe had access to Sumerian texts as such (as they were beneath sand still in the 1800s and 1900s).

The revisionism researchers focus on Greco-Roman-Biblical material, but pay less attention to similarities to other traditions. What does that mean for the non-Levantine sources - OLB, Buddhist materials and likes of Frá Fornjóti written down by Christian era Icelandic scribes? As per most revisionist accounts, the Greco-Roman-Biblical culture is timewise and geographically the stretch of the faked material.

[ott]

revised chronology, in regards to Bible work ... does not explain that well why there are Buddhist materials

Why, if the Bible was concocted in the Renaissance, would it be hard to explain Buddhist ideas having been used as inspiration?

[Nordic]

Possible reasons for existence of Buddhism in the Bible text and Christianity include:

• generic influence i.e. OLB Buddhism, Ashoka's missionaries and Hellenistic cultural exchange (Alexander the Great)

• the primary Bible author was well indoctrinated in Buddhism i.e. Bock saga Jesus who had lived in Tibet and India

• there is a positive attempt at a new religion, with Buddhist texts as the secret source material ie. secret Buddhist influencers (yet to be identified).

• there is a nefarious forgery of a new religion, with Buddhist texts as the secret source material ie. very late pagan Romans, Roman Catholics and Byzantines (latter historically also called 'Romans').

OLB suggests the first or the last, Bock saga implicitly the second and late Danish researcher Christian Lindtner the first or the third. As there is a whole literature sub-genre of Roman emperors and their later Roman Catholic followers (chronology revision) faking history, the fourth option matches well with those claims.

One story of Buddha was known as a saint story in the 1000s Europe onwards. The northern God of Job 37 links to Mahagovinda Sutta included in an early Buddhist collections. The Romans had an ideological culture of conquering the north, the project eventually finished under the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Orthodox banners (more here on that). If one assumes that the Greco-Roman-Christian authors did not know well, or that much care for, the background holy polar land mythos, it all forms a semi-coherent narrative. This is suggested also by the fact that the Greco-Roman mappers did not understand that they already knew the Asian polar land stories of Uttarakuru ie. Ódainsakr (as misplaced "Ottorokorai" and "Attacori") as the polar Hyperborean stories.* This agrees with the idea of Bible to have had whole lot of authors and thus to contain several "layers":

• the Sumerian-(Norse-)Egyptian-Levantine-Hindu-Greek-Buddhist layer

• whoever knew to substitute correctly Reu 'Ra' for original Enmerkar (Kári) and correctly syllable-reversed original Melemkic back to Lémek/Lamech 'Lemminkäinen'

• the Roman layers (emphasis on saint Peter, makig NT compatible with emperors' rule)

• the medieval layers (as suggested by Fomenko).

If we however assume it all was written by single author or a joint group of authors in the renaissance era, it would make little sense to find such a variety of sources, occasionally contradictory in use (third and fourth reason in list above). In that scenario the only reason to include it all would have been to produce a wall of text as a synthetic book, with little care if they made coherent whole or not. Hence I find it less believable that the Bible was wholly written in the renaissance era.**

* As opposed to German Hyperborean tales (Dominitian's war agaisnt Chatti) and Frisian Hyperborean tales on Ulysus and his children (here).

** I cannot however argue against Fomenko's charts, so I think they were edited at some point in those times; the ruler lenghts in corresponding texts of Sumerian King List and OT Genesis differ, so either there was a broken link in text transmission or the dates are based on some altogether different source (for example invented).

[Colin Alexander777]

If our conventional historical timelines were essentially fabricated with long stretches tacked on, it would certainly explain elegantly a lot of chronological problems in the historical record. I think I will reexamine a lot of my research assumptions in light of that new context.