I write in English, so maybe it is translated more correctly.
I meant biblical references on Andronicus.
I quote from Fomenko's book "Crusades and exodus":
Chapter 18.
"A comparison of the Biblical texts of the XVI-XVII century to the modern Bible reveal the emphasis of the editors: in the Book of Psalms “Christ” is replaced by the“Anointed One”, a “bishop” becomes a “man of power”, an “altar”, a “davir” and so on. The editors were obviously removing Christian symbolism and terminology from the Old Testament.
As an example, let us compare the respective fragments that refer to the decorations of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem after the text of the Ostrog Bible, published by Ivan Fyodorov at the very end of the XVI century (<621>) and the modern Synodal translation. We see that the description given by the Ostrog Bible could also refer to the decorations of an orthodox Christian church. We see references to an altar, which is separated from the rest of the temple by a wall, also known as the iconostasis, the text describes a “kiot,” or the place where the most revered icons are kept in Orthodox temples. The temple itself is called a church. The authors of the Synodal translation have tried their best in order to make the description of Solomon’s temple resemble a Christian church as little as humanly possible."

My reflection is particular, and it is very difficult to explain it in a different language. In practice, why does Judaism, which in the new chronology, was born as a derivation of Christianity, paradoxically not have a creed of Christ-Andronicus?
Thank you for the replies, you are all very kind in this forum.