EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
6. Savior Not-Made-by-Hands, SUDARIUM AND THE TURIN SHROUD.
In 1998 a report about the radiocarbon dating of the famous Christian relic, The Turin Shroud, resonated strongly with a public. It is considered that this fragment of cloth still bears some traces of crucified Christ, allegedly from the I century. HOWEVER, THE RADIO-CARBON DATING GAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DATE: APPROXIMATELY THE XI-XII cc. The radiocarbon analyses were conducted in three laboratories of – The Oxford University, Arizona State University and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich) [ЦРС], ch.1.
In [ЦРС] we discuss in detail the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. It appears that in fact the most probable date is the second half of the XII century.
The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to the mid XII century corresponds well with other independent dates of Christ's life, arrived at by us. It should be said, that we have a rather critical attitude towards the results of radiocarbon dating [1v], ch.1. This method is still very inaccurate - dating of artefacts which are up to 2000 years old can give rise to unforeseeable mistakes, which correspond badly with the artefact’s true age! Besides, when ordering a radiocarbon dating of any given artefact, the archaeologists often inform the laboratory beforehand of the estimated age of the sample, and physicists only 'specify' it, by selecting the 'desired date' from a spectrum of the obtained radiocarbon dates (which objectively have a broad range). However, the situation with the dating of The Shroud is somewhat different. The samples of its material were independently dated by several laboratories which allows reliance on their conclusions with a certain degree of confidence. Thus, it is most likely The Turin Shroud is an invaluable original of the XII century, which has fortuitously survived till nowadays.
From the point of view of the new chronology the story of the Turin Shroud, i.e. Acheiropoieta Image looks like this. The body of Christ was enwrapped in it in 1185. Then, after some time, it turned up in Russia. Here it was kept folded – so, that on the outside only The Holy Face, which was depicted on many Russian icons, was visible. As the Shroud remained in Russia, the icons of the Acheiropoieta Image were painted mainly by Russian artists. In the West such images were less wide spread. The Western artists imagined the story of the Shroud somewhat differently, fig.12 [ЦРС], ch.1. In Russia the icon The Image of the Savior Not-Made-By-Hands was also used as a military banner and a holy banner. The Savior thus depicted embellished the banners of Yaroslavl, Tver' and Moscow Princes, acted as the defender of the Russian Soil and the protector of Russian armies. They fought under His banner during the Battle of Kulikovo [ЦРС], ch.1.
Considering that The Shroud remained in Russia, it becomes clear why it is precisely here, where the special ceremony of The Adoration of the Shroud during the Holy Week originated. It doesn't exist at all in the Catholic Church. The Russian church service incorporates the carrying of The Shroud out of the church during the Procession of the Cross on Good Friday. But, most likely, the original Shroud was not usually disturbed. In place of the original one of its numerous replicas were used, which were kept in every church. The original, judging by the creases on it, was carefully kept folded, so that only the face of Christ could be seen. That is why it was called the Image Not-Made-By-Hands or the Sudarium. During The Great Revolt of the XVII century, many Moscow treasures, ransacked in the tumult of the rebellion and occupation, found the way to the West. It is probable, that it was in the XVII century when the Shroud was damaged by a fire and burnt in several places. These singes from the fire are still visible today. The Shroud found its way to Turin in Italy allegedly in 1578.
It is possible that even earlier there existed some other Shroud in Turin. As there are several allegedly authentic Shrouds known of in the West. But the original Shroud found itself in Turin, in our opinion, only in the XVII century. In fact, a special shrine was built for it and it was placed in Turin Cathedral only in the 1694 [ЦРС], ch.1. According to the new chronology, such a date – the end of the XVII century – is very telling. It was then, after the crushing defeat of Razin and vanquishing of the Turks under Vienna, when it became clear that the era of the Great Empire was passing, and that Russia-Horde was no longer to be feared, and that at last, the seized treasures and relics of the Horde could be released from their chests, including the Shroud, without fearing that the former owners would return and reclaim them.
The magnificent Saint Mark's Basilica in Venice is the adornment of the city and one of the most popular buildings in Italy. Its history is extremely interesting in the light of the new chronology.
It appears, that the first evangelist Mark lived in the XII century, died in its second half and was buried for the first and the last time in St. Mark's Basilica, which was specially erected in his honour [2v1], ch.1. This lavish burial of Mark allegedly in 1094 (most likely circa 1194) with the participation of the Doge, Patriarch and all of the people was later interpreted by the historians as supposedly 'the rediscovery' of his remains 'a millennium later' as Scaligerian chronology has already shifted the time of Mark's life to the I century.
There were no mysterious vanishing and miraculous reappearances of Mark's relics 'a thousand years later'. These cunning legends were made up later, when the historians had already started to coordinate Scaligerian chronology with the evidence of the old documents, that pointed to the XII-XIII cc. as the epoch of Mark the Evangelist's activity.
Saint Mark's Basilica in its modern state was completed significantly later than the XII century. Today we see the cathedral which was completed not earlier than XVI century [2v1], ch.1.
The rest of the evangelists also lived and wrote at the end of the XII – beginning of the XIII cc.
Following the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in Czar-Grad in Bosphorus two branches of Christianity emerged.
The first branch, which we will provisionally call 'royal or ancestral Christianity', was the religion of the RELATIVES OF ANDRONICUS-CHRIST. This was the Christianity of the royal family, the Empire's ruling ancestral clan, but not the religion of the common people. Inside the clan, as in any family, there were disputes. After the Crusade in 1204 those of his relatives who came to believe in Him as a God came to power. But they also regarded their own persona as holy given that God Andronicus-Christ was their relation. The 'ancient'-Egyptian artefacts and imagery convey to us the atmosphere of this ancestral Christianity, i.e. - the memorials of the royal family burial site. Egyptian Christ-Osiris, his worst enemy Set, his wife-mother Isida, etc. were close relatives. Occasionally they fought between themselves, killed and persecuted each other, but nonetheless their relationship remained ancestral.
We can see a similar picture in the 'ancient'-Greek pantheon of the Olympic Gods, where Zeus is another representation of Jesus Christ. The Olympic Gods were related, though it still did not rule out wars between them, machination or conspiracies. But in the course of any clashes it was never forgotten that the conflicting sides were godly, which vastly differentiated them from the rest of the world. The same viewpoint was shared by the 'ancient'- Egyptian gods .
But Christ, aka Emperor Andronicus, bequeathed a school of his disciples-apostles. They have created a fundamentally different branch of the original Christianity, namely THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. If we refer to modern Christianity, we will see that this is exactly what it's called. The Christian Church today and for a long time has stressed that it is specifically the APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The persistency of this claim itself makes one think, that at some point there also existed some other Christian Church. Why emphasise this fact so intensely and constantly, if no other movement apart from the Apostolic one existed?
The Apostolic movement, unlike the first one, ancestral one, was, so to say, of the people. It seems that the only representative of the royal family in the Apostolic Christianity was Our Lord's Brother Jacob. But he was soon murdered, after which the primacy passed on to the Apostles of the common descent – to Peter and Paul.
At first there were no fundamental differences between the two branches of Christianity, but they have soon appeared and it is clear why. The ancestral-royal branch of the Christianity was not large, but it commanded absolute power. At first, and for quite a long time, it reigned supremely over the Empire. The Christian Czars in the first centuries of Christianity perceived themselves as relations to God Andronicus-Christ and forced all of the people to venerate them as deities. 'In Paganism was established a system where there existed gods in the heavens and GODS ON EARTH, I.E. THE EMPERORS', v.2, p.302. The Christians of the Apostolic Church were forced to offer sacrifices to the gods, i.e. to the living emperors. Many refused. It was they who were to become the first Christian martyrs. If the emperors demanded from the Christians 'the proper veneration', then it most likely meant that the emperors considered the Apostolic Christians to be of the same faith, but having strayed from the true path, which was punished.
To conclude, the Roman Emperors worshiped Christ, calling him Zeus and Jupiter, but at that considered themselves to be Gods too and persistently demanded to be worshiped. The second branch of Christianity – the Apostolic, branch of the people – regarded only Christ to be God and disagreed with the claims of the Royal family, from which Christ originated, to idolize the rulers. A conflict arose. The Royal Christianity began to persecute the Apostolic Christianity. This was the notorious 'Christian ostracism' allegedly in the first centuries AD, i.e. the epoch of the XIII-XIV cc.
The people's Apostolic Christianity, unlike the Ancestral Royal Christianity, was popular on the mass scale and, what's important, could organize itself and created a stable church, which was called Apostolic. In time it has evolved into a powerful organisation, put up a fight against the Royal Christianity, and in the end has won. Constantine the Great, aka, as we show it in [КР], czar-khan Dmitriy Donskoy, molds Apostolic Christianity into the state religion of the entire gigantic 'Mongol' Empire. Since then the czars-khans of the Empire ceased to be the Gods. This upheaval took place at the end of the XIV century and was far from painless. This matter was resolved in the major Kulikovo Battle in 1380. The great importance, which was given to the Kulikovo Battle and its numerous representations in world history, also becomes clear.
There were many texts written in both of the branches of original Christianity. They varied. The people's Apostolic Church created the Gospels. We are very familiar with their spirit. The Gospels revere Andronicus-Christ and do not accept any equality with Him. This is a reverence of a disciple for his Teacher. Christ is the Sun, which is unblemished.
In the Ancestral-Royal circle they also were writing a lot (or used chroniclers and writers). Naturally they were writing a lot about their famous ancestor Lord Christ. But the flavour of these texts was essentially different. From them subsequently grew the 'ancient'-Greek myths about Zeus-Christ and his numerous relations – Olympian Gods, and also the 'ancient'-Greek legends about God Osiris-Christ and his nine closest gods. Modern commentators refer all such Christian testimonials to an historical period - 'paganism', naturally shifting it back to 'antiquity' and separating it from Christianity.
The differences between the texts of the apostolic tradition and Ancestral-Royal literature were so great, that today researchers have to explain with great difficulty vivid parallels and analogies between the Apostolic Christianity and 'paganism', which emerge repeatedly.
A myth of the Argonauts probably tells us about Christ's and his disciples'-apostles' - voyage to the rich gold deposits in Russia. Gold is considered to be the symbol of Christ. Gold is constantly used in the Orthodox Church service. Iconostases, icons and the wooden carving in the cathedrals are gilded with it. The priests' clothings are lavishly embroidered with gold. Cups and icon covers are made of it. Orthodox Churches Domes and crosses on them are coated with gold.
It is possible, that it was exactly in the XII century, in the times of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ, when gold started widely being used as money. That is why it was gold that became the symbol for money. Argonauts, i.e. Christ's and the apostles' voyage to Russia for gold also becomes clear.
Initially, when people discovered gold, they didn't immediately think of using it as money. Gold doesn't rust. It is a very soft and yielding metal. At first they used to make houseware out of gold. But gold isn't suitable for all weaponry or tools – it is too soft. In the view of gold's rarity, its value and convenience in producing houseware, golden goods were extremely valued in ancient times. When the chronicles tell us about robberies or gifts, they often refer to golden vessels, cups, etc. Hence it is evident that in the ancient times it was initially exactly golden houseware which was used as common 'currency'.
Only in time, presumably in the XII-XIII cc., gold became money in the truest sense of the word – accounts were settled with pieces of gold. At first it was weighed, and then they started cutting pieces of a standard weight, which soon led to the appearance of golden and silver coins as a means of payment. And only later, out of poverty in places they started using copper and other inexpensive metals. Their value when re-melted would be negligible. Thus the copper money was nominal, its value was established only by law, which obliged people to accept it as a means of payment.
Wide coining of such 'conventional money', which did not have its own value, as opposed to gold and silver, began only in the XVII century, already after the collapse of the Great Empire. For example, the introduction of the first copper money in Russia in the time of the first Romanovs, in place of previous gold and silver ones, caused violent protests among the Russian population, who were used to REAL MONEY, i.e. golden and silver coins. The notorious 'copper revolts' broke out. Revolts were crushed by force and the new rules forcefully imposed on the people.