I’m not sure why a thread was not automatically created for the resource, so I have taken the initiative to create one myself, since Iwanted to post my summary and comments on it
EPUB - MM Postnikov - Critical study of the chronology of the ancient world (English - machine translated)
Summary and Comments
Postnikov’s work is mainly a summary of Morozov’s ‘Christ’ along with his own commentaries.
Book 1 mainly concerns itself with the Greco-Roman tradition. Postnikov goes through the ancient authors, and demonstrates how each one is not trustworthy, and likely date to the Renaissance. Reasons for forgery are also explored. A short comparison of the phantom Roman empire from Lucius Sulla to Caracalla vs from Lucius Aurelian to Theodoric the Great is carried out in the last chapter.
He makes a convincing case why literature could not have developed before the advent of paper (for writing practice) and the printing press (for learning materials). Also, why ‘pagan’ and ‘scientific’ works could not have been copied and renewed by illiterate monks. In this volume, his criticism against the validity of carbon dating is one of the best that I have seen.
However, Postnikov-Morozov contradicts himself and asserts that despite the difficulty for literature to develop, there are still ‘original’ (!) sources that are passed onto to us from 4th century AD and onwards. This assertion is based on the close fit of astronomical - mainly eclipses - data to the literature dated to post-4th cen AD; while pre-4th century literatury descriptions of eclipses are deemed apocryphal.
If Postnikov hoped to convince the reader that astronomical dating is trustworthy, then he has failed terribly: since, after reading this book, I became convinced that astronomical dating is wholly untrustworthy. Wouldn’t it be more natural to think that: during early Renaissance, when the ‘oldest’ works were written, astronomy was not yet developed enough to fake the astronomical data; at some point, the forgers developed the ability to calculate eclipses, and that was when they began writing the (apocryphal) works which are to be dated to 4th century AD and onwards? (Note: this is only one possible explanation; there can be other explanations)
*
Book 2 deals with the Bible; the history of Jewish kingdom and the dating of the writing itself.
The lack of archeological evidence for the events detailed in the Old Testament is briefly summarized. A convincing case is made for the parallelism between the Roman Empire and the Jewish Kingdom; it is further asserted that “Assyrians" refers to the northern, Germanic tribes, and "Babylonians" to Arabs.
An interesting theory is proposed for the rise of Christianity. Similar to Pfister, the volcano Vesuvius is proposed to be a sacred site - if not God himself - and Pompeii a holy city(Jerusalem). It was hypothesized that during a volcanic eruption, many religious sects and temples situated at the foot of Vesuvius were destroyed, and as a result a single monotheistic sect won out. Examples in the biblical test were given that strengthens this hypothesis; for example, God was often described to send thunder, smoke and fire to destroy his opponents. After Pompeii was destroyed, Rome was eventually elevated to the position of the new holy city.
Another interesting hypothesis was made that special relevance was given to a meteorite(or perhaps a volcano rock?), which led to the legend of Simon-Peter(i.e. stone). The connection to Muslims, who also worship a meteorite (black stone), is noted (in Book 3). Another hypothesis is made concerning the invention of wine and its use in religious ceremonies leading to a new form of religion, i.e. Christianity; parallels are drawn between Dionysus and Christ, and the orgiastic nature of Christian ceremonies, which continue up to the Renaissance(! Shouldn’t this make us reconsider church history?), is highlighted (in Book 3). On another note, Morozov’s theory of Christianity originating from Arius(which he identified with the Biblical Aaron) is not convincing.
The same problem with astronomical dating is repeated in Book 2: Morozov dated the death of Jesus Christ to the 4th century based on the description on a lunar eclipse mentioned in the Gospels; he also dated the writing of the Apocalypse to the 3rd century by interpreting the ‘horses’ as planets and their positions at the zodiacs(an equally plausible interpretation is the horses simply represent the Sun in the four seasons). The problem with this approach is obvious: he discounts the miracles described in the rest of the passages as ‘literary metaphors’, but he takes the passages that he uses for astronomical data as ‘historical facts’ - it should be a case of all or nothing. Moreover, Morozov-Postnikov’s implcit assumption of the historicity of Christ(at least the Christ described in the Gospels) is erroneous - one cannot date a person who does not exist in history.
Postnikov believes the dating is confirmed by the parallels he found between Jesus and Basil of Caesarea (as well as Julian, the Apostate), both dated to 4th century AD. The fact is, parallels of Jesus can be found all throughout history, in any era (for example, Julius Caesar; Pfister sees Martin Luther - 15th century! - to also be a parallel of Christ); therefore, finding parallels of Christ in the same century is by no means ‘proof’ of the correctness of the dating. Morozov even attempts to verify it using eclipses recorded in the Chinese chronicles! - but what makes him trust the chronology of Chinese history?
*
Book 3 explores various Asian empires, as well as early Church history.
On the ancient Egyptian empire, a somewhat convincing comparison is made to show the parallels of empire with the Biblical patriarchs(early), with the Roman-Byzantine empire(middle), and with previous dynasties of itself (late). Morozoc’s theory of a ‘real’ Egyptian empire, is hampered by the fact that pyramids and temples were possibly(probably) fabricated in the 18-19th century - which he seemed either unaware or was unwilling to contemplate.
The history of China and India is briefly touched upon, but the remarks are not particularly revealing. On cuneiform texts, It seems to me the discovery of Hittite cuneiform tablets is wholly a fabrication of modern historians, but the author is not willing to go so far as to assert this.
On the Islamic Golden Age(‘Muslim renaissance’), the apocryphal nature of the scientific and literary works attributed to that era is demonstrated. Morozov argued with the consistency of the Koran could only be guaranteed by the printing process (but couldn’t the same be argued for the Bible?) thus he dated the Koran to the 12-14th century and onwards (too early IMO). Biblical ‘Arabia’ is identified as ‘Iberia’. Hypothesis of the origin of Islam is not convincing.
I have no comment on Morozov’s reconstruction of early Church history, he believed in the veracity of the sources, I do not (see, for example, Edwin Johnson).
Summarizing remarks
As mentioned already, since Postnikov-Morozov largely accepts the mainstream chronology accounts post-4th century AD, the whole work is affected by this view. In this respect, perhaps the Book 1 is the most enjoyable volume, because it deals more generally with the subject of ‘history’ instead of going into the details of the chronicles
EPUB - MM Postnikov - Critical study of the chronology of the ancient world (English - machine translated)
Summary and Comments
Postnikov’s work is mainly a summary of Morozov’s ‘Christ’ along with his own commentaries.
Book 1 mainly concerns itself with the Greco-Roman tradition. Postnikov goes through the ancient authors, and demonstrates how each one is not trustworthy, and likely date to the Renaissance. Reasons for forgery are also explored. A short comparison of the phantom Roman empire from Lucius Sulla to Caracalla vs from Lucius Aurelian to Theodoric the Great is carried out in the last chapter.
He makes a convincing case why literature could not have developed before the advent of paper (for writing practice) and the printing press (for learning materials). Also, why ‘pagan’ and ‘scientific’ works could not have been copied and renewed by illiterate monks. In this volume, his criticism against the validity of carbon dating is one of the best that I have seen.
However, Postnikov-Morozov contradicts himself and asserts that despite the difficulty for literature to develop, there are still ‘original’ (!) sources that are passed onto to us from 4th century AD and onwards. This assertion is based on the close fit of astronomical - mainly eclipses - data to the literature dated to post-4th cen AD; while pre-4th century literatury descriptions of eclipses are deemed apocryphal.
If Postnikov hoped to convince the reader that astronomical dating is trustworthy, then he has failed terribly: since, after reading this book, I became convinced that astronomical dating is wholly untrustworthy. Wouldn’t it be more natural to think that: during early Renaissance, when the ‘oldest’ works were written, astronomy was not yet developed enough to fake the astronomical data; at some point, the forgers developed the ability to calculate eclipses, and that was when they began writing the (apocryphal) works which are to be dated to 4th century AD and onwards? (Note: this is only one possible explanation; there can be other explanations)
*
Book 2 deals with the Bible; the history of Jewish kingdom and the dating of the writing itself.
The lack of archeological evidence for the events detailed in the Old Testament is briefly summarized. A convincing case is made for the parallelism between the Roman Empire and the Jewish Kingdom; it is further asserted that “Assyrians" refers to the northern, Germanic tribes, and "Babylonians" to Arabs.
An interesting theory is proposed for the rise of Christianity. Similar to Pfister, the volcano Vesuvius is proposed to be a sacred site - if not God himself - and Pompeii a holy city(Jerusalem). It was hypothesized that during a volcanic eruption, many religious sects and temples situated at the foot of Vesuvius were destroyed, and as a result a single monotheistic sect won out. Examples in the biblical test were given that strengthens this hypothesis; for example, God was often described to send thunder, smoke and fire to destroy his opponents. After Pompeii was destroyed, Rome was eventually elevated to the position of the new holy city.
Another interesting hypothesis was made that special relevance was given to a meteorite(or perhaps a volcano rock?), which led to the legend of Simon-Peter(i.e. stone). The connection to Muslims, who also worship a meteorite (black stone), is noted (in Book 3). Another hypothesis is made concerning the invention of wine and its use in religious ceremonies leading to a new form of religion, i.e. Christianity; parallels are drawn between Dionysus and Christ, and the orgiastic nature of Christian ceremonies, which continue up to the Renaissance(! Shouldn’t this make us reconsider church history?), is highlighted (in Book 3). On another note, Morozov’s theory of Christianity originating from Arius(which he identified with the Biblical Aaron) is not convincing.
The same problem with astronomical dating is repeated in Book 2: Morozov dated the death of Jesus Christ to the 4th century based on the description on a lunar eclipse mentioned in the Gospels; he also dated the writing of the Apocalypse to the 3rd century by interpreting the ‘horses’ as planets and their positions at the zodiacs(an equally plausible interpretation is the horses simply represent the Sun in the four seasons). The problem with this approach is obvious: he discounts the miracles described in the rest of the passages as ‘literary metaphors’, but he takes the passages that he uses for astronomical data as ‘historical facts’ - it should be a case of all or nothing. Moreover, Morozov-Postnikov’s implcit assumption of the historicity of Christ(at least the Christ described in the Gospels) is erroneous - one cannot date a person who does not exist in history.
Postnikov believes the dating is confirmed by the parallels he found between Jesus and Basil of Caesarea (as well as Julian, the Apostate), both dated to 4th century AD. The fact is, parallels of Jesus can be found all throughout history, in any era (for example, Julius Caesar; Pfister sees Martin Luther - 15th century! - to also be a parallel of Christ); therefore, finding parallels of Christ in the same century is by no means ‘proof’ of the correctness of the dating. Morozov even attempts to verify it using eclipses recorded in the Chinese chronicles! - but what makes him trust the chronology of Chinese history?
*
Book 3 explores various Asian empires, as well as early Church history.
On the ancient Egyptian empire, a somewhat convincing comparison is made to show the parallels of empire with the Biblical patriarchs(early), with the Roman-Byzantine empire(middle), and with previous dynasties of itself (late). Morozoc’s theory of a ‘real’ Egyptian empire, is hampered by the fact that pyramids and temples were possibly(probably) fabricated in the 18-19th century - which he seemed either unaware or was unwilling to contemplate.
The history of China and India is briefly touched upon, but the remarks are not particularly revealing. On cuneiform texts, It seems to me the discovery of Hittite cuneiform tablets is wholly a fabrication of modern historians, but the author is not willing to go so far as to assert this.
On the Islamic Golden Age(‘Muslim renaissance’), the apocryphal nature of the scientific and literary works attributed to that era is demonstrated. Morozov argued with the consistency of the Koran could only be guaranteed by the printing process (but couldn’t the same be argued for the Bible?) thus he dated the Koran to the 12-14th century and onwards (too early IMO). Biblical ‘Arabia’ is identified as ‘Iberia’. Hypothesis of the origin of Islam is not convincing.
I have no comment on Morozov’s reconstruction of early Church history, he believed in the veracity of the sources, I do not (see, for example, Edwin Johnson).
Summarizing remarks
As mentioned already, since Postnikov-Morozov largely accepts the mainstream chronology accounts post-4th century AD, the whole work is affected by this view. In this respect, perhaps the Book 1 is the most enjoyable volume, because it deals more generally with the subject of ‘history’ instead of going into the details of the chronicles
I'll put a few points here and there.
