Chapter 1.
DATING THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST AS THE MIDDLE OF THE XII CENTURY.
4. THE CIRCULAR ZODIAC OF DENDERA (OSIRIS ZODIAC) GIVES THE DATE OF EASTER (PASCHAL DATE) AS THE MORNING OF THE 20 MARCH 1185 AND IDEALLY CORRESPONDS WITH THE DATING OF THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM. (ANOTHER INDEPENDENT ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST).
A question arises – is there among the absolute astronomic dating of the historic monuments such a date, which would match exactly the crucifixion of Christ in the end of the XII century? As it is entirely possible to expect that such an important event would be immortalised in some astronomical imagery, let’s say a zodiac with a horoscope. For example, in ‘Ancient’ Egypt, not far from the Imperial necropolis, see our books ‘Imperia’ (‘The Empire’), ‘Novaia Khronologia Yegipta’ (‘The New Chronology of Egypt’), and also CHRON5. First of all let us look at the dating of the zodiac ‘Ancient Egypt’ obtained by us in 2003-2004.
We would like to remind you, that the crucifixion of Christ took place not a long time from the first vernal full moon, during the Jewish Passover.
STATEMENT. AMONG THE ZODIACS WHICH WE DATED THERE IS ONLY ONE ZODIAC WHICH GIVES THE EXACT DATE OF THE JEWISH PASSOVER = THE DATE OF THE VERNAL FULL MOON. We are talking about the favourite Circular Zodiac of Dendera or, as it is also called Osiris Zodiac [164]. See fig.1.32 
.
To point out – ‘Osiris Zodiac’ in fact means ‘Christ Zodiac’. As according to our research Osiris, the ‘Ancient’ Egyptian god most likely represented Jesus Christ, see our book ‘Imperia’ (‘The Empire’) and CHRON5, ch.19:14.
Dating of the Egyptian Osiris Zodiac to the morning of 20 March 1185 (see also CHRON, part 2), which we arrived at in the book ‘The new chronology of Egypt’ – perfectly corresponds to the dating of the Star of Bethlehem to the middle of the XII century. In other words, the year 1185 corresponds with the crucifixion of Christ. Moreover, subtracting 33 years (i.e. the age of Christ according to the Gospels) from the year 1185, we arrive at the year 1152 as the most plausible date of his birth.
20 March 1185 was on Wednesday. On that day there was the exact astronomical full moon, i.e. the Jewish Passover (which is calculated according to the old rule without any shifting). Consequently in 1185 the Jewish Passover should have begun on around 20 March – 19 March, Wednesday 20 March or Thursday 21 March. The Jewish Passover was celebrated over the seven days (see The Bible). Consequently in 1185 the Jewish Passover Sabbath would fall on the 23 March, and the Jewish Passover Sunday would fall on 24 March.
Thus the Synoptic Gospels (the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke) verify that the Paschal Last Supper took place on Thursday before the crucifixion. In fact Thursday, 21 March 1185 was already Paschal. In regards to the evangelist John’s account, that Passover was on Saturday, it can be easily explained. John meant not the first day of Passover, but just the Passover Sabbath calling it specifically ‘the great day’ (John 19:31). Of course if we look at the modern translation of the Bible we will see John’s following words: ‘It was Friday before Passover’ (John 19:13) (Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. John 19:14Every Friday was called the preparation, (namely, for the Sabbath.) And as often as the Passover fell on a Friday, that day was called the preparation of the Passover - Translator’s note) I.e. it seems clearly stated that Saturday was the first day of Passover (if Friday was still ‘the preparation of the Passover’, i.e. before the Passover started). But when addressing the original Church-Slavonic text – let’s say in the Gospel of 1951 Moscow edition – we find out entirely different text there meaning: ‘It was the fifth day of the Passover’ (‘…Good Friday or Holy Friday (Great Friday)‘ [127], page 188 reverse side. Meaning: ‘It was the fifth day of the Passover’.These words mean something entirely different: ’The Passover has already BEGUN, it was the Friday during the Passover. To clarify, the Passover was celebrated for seven days and that is why there were Monday, Tuesday and Friday, etc. during the Passover, all the days of the week. It is possible to speculate that John the Evangelist called the Passover Saturday a ‘great day’ as Saturday was venerated in its own right, more so the Passover one. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN IN ANY WAY THAT THE PASSOVER BEGAN ON A SATURDAY. As we can see in 1185 the Passover fell on Wednesday or around it. A possibly inaccuracy can be attributed to the fact that the Jewish Passover started on the day of the Full Moon which in the old days was determined by simply looking at the sky, which could have created an error of plus-minus one day.
As a result we have a picture perfectly corresponding to both the Synoptic Gospels and Evangelical John. The seeming contradiction between them emerged apparently only due to the errors of the successive translators and commentators. As a result the Biblical scholars faced a ‘big problem’, which they persistently but unsuccessfully are trying to resolve until now. The ‘successful results’ which are announced once in a while amount to just cloudland ‘on the subject’.
Thus, for example, the early XX century landmark study of the Bible – ‘The Anchor Bible or the commentaries of all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament’ [131] – says the following on this subject: ‘This verse from the Gospel according to Matthew and the parallels to it (meaning the claim that the Passover was celebrated by Christ as early as Thursday: see Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 27:7-9 – Author) gave rise to a vast amount of literature. There appeared many articles and writings about ‘Christ‘s last supper’ … but the results were unsatisfactory. ‘Studying the subject, professor Glubokovsky wrote in 1893, this still remains a heavy scientific cross to bear, the inscriptions of which didn’t achieve even an approximate decoding’. ‘As the question of present stands, - the British scientist Sadney wrote in 1906, thirteen years later - we can only acknowledge our ignorance’ [131], v.3, p.407.
To conclude. This is another one, already the third, ABSOLUTE AND INDEPENDENT dating of Christ’s life, which we obtained, confirming the astronomical dating of the Star of Bethlehem to the middle of the XII century. Namely there was discovered the Paschal Egyptian Zodiac which bears in itself the date which is exactly 33 years apart from the dating of the Star of Bethlehem heralding the birth of Christ (to be precise – from one of its feasible dates). But then this zodiac most likely signifies the DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION. What’s important is the fact that SUCH ZODIAC DOES EXIST. Moreover, the historians themselves call it OSIRIS ZODIAC – i.e., as we understand it now, - CHRIST’S ZODIAC.
5. THE MEDIAEVAL JUBILEES ALSO REFER TO A POSSIBLE DATE OF CHRIST’S BIRTH CIRCA 1150. (THE INDEPENDENT DATING ACCORDING TO THE JUBILEE CYCLES).
Let us address the ‘Lutheran Chronograph’ of the XVII century which describes the world history from anno mundi (since the creation of the world) up until 1680. In particular it tells us about the celebration of the Mediaeval Christian ‘Jubilees’, which were celebrated in the Vatican in 1299-1550. The Jubilees were set in commemoration of Christ [143], page 332, as they were solemnizing during the days of January calends [143], page 344. It was the Nativity of Christ close to the January calends, that was celebrated and not some other Christian holiday. We discuss the Jubilees in detail in CHRON5, ch.5:17. See also the two volume edition ‘Rus’ and Rome’.
The Jubilee years were proclaimed by the Roman popes. According to the ’Lutheran Chronograph’ in 1390 ‘Jubilee of Christ’s sojourn upon earth’ was proclaimed by Pope Urban IV as the THIRTY YEAR JUBILEE of the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Later it became the ten year jubilee,
and from 1450 on the decree by Pope Nicholas VI – it became the FIFTY YEAR JUBILEE[143], 344-346, 365.
Let us conduct a simple, but rather interesting calculation. Let us consider that if in 1390 the Jubilee A.D. from the Nativity of Christ was celebrated as a THIRTY YEAR JUBILEE (i.e. multiple of 30 years), and in 1450 – as a FIFTY YEAR JUBILEE (multiple of 50 years), then by simple calculation we arrive at the full list of possible – from the point of view of the Mediaeval popes – years of Jesus’ Birth. Namely: 1300, 1150, 1000, 850, 700, 550, 400, 250, 100 A.D., etc. and so forth in increments of 150 years into the past (150 is the lowest common multiple for the numbers 30 and 50). Amazingly, ‘zero’ year A.D. is absent in the resulting list of dates, where the historians place the Birth of Christ to today. It turns out that the Roman popes who arranged a Jubilee did not at all think that Christ was born in the beginning of A.D., as the later chronologists of the XVI-XVII cc. claimed. The date of Christ’s Birth for the XIV century popes apparently was an entirely different one.
Amongst the stated dates which are spaced sparsely enough we see a date which falls exactly onto the middle of the XII century. It is 1150. WHICH ONCE AGAIN PERFECTLY CORRESPONDS WITH THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM PLUS-MINUS 10 YEARS.
To complete the picture here are presented the quotes from the Lutheran Chronograph concerning the establishment and celebration of the Mediaeval Christian Jubilees.
It says that pope Urban IV in 1389 established ‘Jubilee of Christ’s centennium (Saeculum)’ which should be celebrated every 30 years starting with 1390. The first solemnization of the Jubilee indeed took place in 1390, but by this time under his successor. Further we learn that subsequently this order of the designation of the Jubilee years was changed. ([143], page 332) Specifically:
It says that Pope Boniface IX (Author), formerly his birth name was Piero Tomacelli, a young man 30 years of age, celebrated the Jubilee twice, the first was in 1390 A.D. according to the way established by his predecessor (Author), the second was in 1400 [143], page 332.
Thus Pope Boniface IX turned the Jubilee from a thirty year one into a ten year one and began to celebrate it every 10 years. We can see from what followed such order of events lasted up until 1450. In fact its celebration in 1450 under Pope Nicholas V was already the sixth one in succession which corresponds with the celebrations from 1390 to 1450 every ten years. But from 1450 the Jubilee became the fifty year one, i.e. was to be celebrated every 50 and not 10 years. In fact the Chronograph tells us, that Nicholas or Tommaso Parentucelli (Foma Lukan), whose father was a physician, was famous for being an advocate for culture and knowledge. He increased and enriched the Bibliotheca (the Vatican library - Author) by three thousand books. He held the fifty year jubilee (the sixth one) in January (Author) of 1450 [143], page 344.
But the fifty years Jubilee still did not take hold, as in 1464 Pope Paul II ordered to turn it into the 25 year one. Paul II himself did not live till 1475, when the Jubilee was scheduled, that is why it was celebrated by the next Pope Sixtus IV, who ruled according to the Lutheran Chronograph in 1471-1484. Thus the seventh celebration of the Jubilee fell on 1475:
‘Paul II or Pietro Barbo… established the 25 year Jubilee’ [143], page 344.
‘Sixtus IV or Francesco della Rovere … celebrated in Rome for the seventh time the Jubilee taking place every 25 years’ [143], page 344.
The eighth solemnity took place under Pope Alexander VI in 1500. It
was accompanied by the extensive sale of the indulgencies and remission of sins:
‘Alexander VI or Roderic (Llançol i) de Borja … was first in Germany to sell the indulgencies with the absolution of sins during the Jubilee of the year 150 A.D. The Jubilee which was celebrated for the eighth time in 1500 A.D. collected three hundred thousand coronats (coronat is the name of a monetary unit – Author)’ [143], page 346.
In the second half of the XVI century the celebration of the Jubilees ceased. Most likely it was connected with the Gregorian Reform and the establishment of the erroneous Scaligerian chronology. See the details in ‘Bibleiskaya Rus’’ (‘Biblical Russia’), CHRON6, ch.5:17 and in the two volumed edition of ‘Rus’ i Rim’(‘Russia and Rome’).
