• About
  • Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus    

Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD

BC History Sometimes Projected Into A Supposed AD Context

pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

All posts tagged pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Holofernes and Judith, Attila and Ildico

Published July 30, 2018 by amaic
Image result for ildico and attila

 

 “The tradition that Attila died in a wedding-night may be true.

But Attila is so much like Holofernes and Ildico so much like Judith…

that we suspect the tradition, even in its most sober version”.

 Otto Maenchen-Helfen

 

 

 

Taken from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nice-things-to-say-about-attila-the-hun-87559701/

 

[Attila’s] spectacular demise, on one of his many wedding nights, is memorably described by Gibbon:

 

Before the king of the Huns evacuated Italy, he threatened to return more dreadful, and more implacable, if his bride, the princess Honoria, were not delivered to his ambassadors…. Yet, in the mean while Attila relieved his tender anxiety, by adding a beautiful maid, whose name was Ildico, to the list of his innumerable wives. Their marriage was celebrated with barbaric pomp and festivity, at his wooden palace beyond the Danube; and the monarch, oppressed with wine and sleep, retired, at a late hour, from the banquet to the nuptial bed.

 

His attendants continued to respect his pleasures, or his repose, the greatest part of the ensuing day, till the unusual silence alarmed their fears and suspicions; and, after attempting to awaken Attila by loud and repeated cries, they at length broke into the royal apartment. They found the trembling bride sitting by the bedside, hiding her face with her veil…. The king…had expired during the night. An artery had suddenly burst; and as Attila lay in a supine posture, he was suffocated by a torrent of blood, which instead of finding a passage through his nostrils, regurgitated into the lungs and stomach. ….


The real story goes as follows (Judith 13:1-10):

 

“When evening came, his slaves quickly withdrew. Bagoas closed the tent from outside and shut out the attendants from his master’s presence. They went to bed, for they all were weary because the banquet had lasted so long. But Judith was left alone in the tent, with Holofernes stretched out on his bed, for he was dead drunk.

Now Judith had told her maid to stand outside the bedchamber and to wait for her to come out, as she did on the other days; for she said she would be going out for her prayers. She had said the same thing to Bagoas. So everyone went out, and no one, either small or great, was left in the bedchamber. Then Judith, standing beside his bed, said in her heart, “O Lord God of all might, look in this hour on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. Now indeed is the time to help your heritage and to carry out my design to destroy the enemies who have risen up against us.”

She went up to the bedpost near Holofernes’ head, and took down his sword that hung there. She came close to his bed, took hold of the hair of his head, and said, “Give me strength today, O Lord God of Israel!” Then she struck his neck twice with all her might, and cut off his head. Next she rolled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the posts. Soon afterward she went out and gave Holofernes’ head to her maid, who placed it in her food bag”.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Holofernes and Judith, Attila and Odabella

Published July 30, 2018 by amaic
Odabella – Nürnberg 2017

 

“Odabella implores him to kill her, but not to curse her. She reminds his fiancé the story of the Hebrew Judith, who saved Israel from the Babylonians [sic] by beheading their leader Holofernes. Odabella has sworn to revenge …”.

 “Attila” by Giuseppe Verdi

 

 

Taken from: https://www.operasofia.bg/en/component/k2/item/2636

 

 

Scene 1

 

Square in Aquileia – a Roman town, ruined and burnt down by the Huns. Attila’s warriors are celebrating their victory. In a chariot, pulled by slaves, arrives their leader and sits on a throne made of shields and spears. Attila is struck by the beauty and courage of the captivated Roman Odabella, who was not afraid to talk in front of him about the incredible women in Italy, always ready to fight against the enemies, and then she insisted to have her sword back. The impressed Attila gives Odabella his own sword as present, and she sees in this gesture a sign of destiny: soon will come her time.

The young woman wants to take revenge for the death of her father, the Lord of Aquileia, and for her fiancé Foresto, also deceased in the battle with the Huns. From Rome arrive messengers, led by the Roman General Ezio – an old enemy of Attila, who, however, the King of the Huns respects deeply as his worthy adversary. The Roman proposes a peace agreement: let Attila rule the whole world, but let him leave Italy to Ezio. The King of the Huns rejects the proposal and threatens that soon he would conquer the arrogant Rome and punish the Emperor.

Scene 2

Desert island on the Alto river. After a stormy night the clouds get cleared, the fog lifts and the rising sun illuminates the horizon. Several hermits are glorifying the power of God, which has put down the night sea storm. Refugees from Aquileia arrive, led by Foresto – Odabella’s fiancé. He didn’t perish by the siege and is at the head of the Romans, who have saved themselves from Attila, ready to fight for the revival of his fatherland and take revenge on the Huns.

Act I

Scene 1

Attila’s camp near Rome. Moon night. The crying Odabella sees in a cloud passing by the images of her dear perished ones – her father and her fiancé. All of a sudden in front of her springs Foresto. The young girl falls into her arms with joy, but he rejects her. The young officer thinks that his beloved was unfaithful to him, if she has voluntarily come in the camp of the enemies. Odabella implores him to kill her, but not to curse her. She reminds his fiancé the story of the Hebrew Judith, who saved Israel from the Babylonians by beheading their leader Holofernes. Odabella has sworn to revenge, and the oppressor has given her by his own his sword in the hands. Foresto begs her beloved pardon and both of them, embraced, vow to die for their fatherland.

Scene 2

Attila‘s tent. The King of the Huns is sleeping, wrapped in a tiger fur, but all of a sudden he jumps out of his bed. In front of him arises a gigantic figure of a white-haired Roman, who stops him in front of the gates of Rome and warns him: for barbarians and pagans there‘s no place in the Eternal city, because this blessed land belongs to God. Attila calls the priests, the leaders and his army – he is ready to defeat the ghost, and the whole world! The battle trumpets answer quite different sounds. Undino lists the tent‘s canopy and Attila sees how from the near-by hills descend Roman children, young women and old men, dressed in white and with palm branches in their hands. Led by the old man Leone, whom Attila saw in his dream, the Roman women and children have risen to defend their city. And from Leone‘s mouth Attila hears once again the fatal warning. Scared to death, the King of the Huns loses consciousness. The Huns are struck – what is this force, which made the powerful Attila for the first time to beg for mercy?

Act II

Scene 1

Ezio‘s camp near Rome. The general reminds himself the glory of his city, which now is humiliated, governed by weak and incompetent Emperor – the young Valentinian. A group of Attila‘s slaves arrive with an invitation for a big feast. Among them is also Foresto, who warns Ezio, that tonight the King of the Huns will be killed, and when the Romans see the signal sign – fires lit on the hills, everyone must rise as one to win their freedom. Ezio is rejoicing. Even if he falls dead in this battle, the whole Italy will lament for him – the last great Roman general.

Scene 2

Attila‘s camp in the wood. Everything is ready for the rich feast. The Huns glorify his great General. Attila appears, accompanied by priests and warriors and takes the place of honour. Next to him is Odabella. Under the sounds of trumpets arrive the Romans with Ezio at the head, and Attila greets his noble enemy. Before the beginning of the feast, the druids warn the King to beware of his Roman guests. The priests of the Gauls have seen bad omens in the sky, but Attila doesn‘t pay attention to the prophesies and orders the priestesses to dance and sing. In the height of the celebrations, Foresto discovers Odabella and asks her weather she has succeeded to pour poison into Attila‘s cup. All of a sudden a strong wind sweeps away the fires. Everyone is terrified, but not Attila – the element of nature has only angered him and he orders to light the torches again and the feast to continue. Heated and thirsty, Attila decides to drink to the health of the Highest God of the Huns – Wodan, but in the last moment Odabella stops him and reveals, that there is poison in the cup. Foresto boldly takes upon himself the blame for the attempt and takes out his sword. Of course, he immediately gets arrested, but Odabella begs Attila to deliver the evil-doer to her. She personally would have it out with him! Attila agrees. Moved by Odabella‘s action, he declares in front of everyone, that tomorrow she would become his legal wife. And Rome has to prepare for battle – “the scourge of God” has awaken again. In the turmoil Odabella helps Foresto to escape. The young man swears to take revenge on Attila and on his unfaithful fiancée.

Act III

Morning in the wood, which separates the camps of Attila and Ezio. Here Foresto is waiting for Undino, who is also ready to take revenge on the King of the Huns. The young slave will give a signal to Ezio and the Romans will attack, when Attila retires in his tent with his young wife. Foresto suffers for his lost love and curses Odabella, who looks like an angel, but in her heart harbours evil. From Attila‘s camp is heard a festive song – Odabella is being led towards the King‘s tent. She is trying to run away, persecuted by the ghost of her father and all of a sudden she appears in front of Foresto in her magnificent wedding dress and with a crown on her head. The girl begs her beloved to forgive her, but he refuses to believe her. Then Ezio appeals them to forget about jealousy and pain – the time has come to fight. Attila appears. He is amazed to see his beloved among the enemies, with who he was so generous. Her – the slave, he has made his wife; to Foresto – the traitor, he has granted the life; and Ezio – the treacherous Roman, he has saved because of Rome! And all of them are in the plot against him! But Odabella sees next to the nupital bed the stained with blood ghost of her father; Foresto doesn‘t want his life without his fatherland and without his beloved woman; and even Ezio‘s city to be saved, Rome is being despised by the whole world, because it has deserved Attila‘s blood massacre.

Hearing the victorious cries of the nearing Roman soldiers, Odabella throws the crown away, she steps in front of Attila and sticks her sword right into his breast. Everybody is rejoicing – at last the Huns are defeated. The Eternal city is saved, and the conquered by Attila tribes and nations are revenged. ….

 

Those well familiar with the Book of Judith can easily join all the requisite dots here.

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Did governor Nehemiah die the death of Razis?  

Published July 21, 2018 by amaic
Image result for nehemiah the governor

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 “Once, or perhaps oftener, during his governorship Nehemiah returned to the king.

Nothing is known as to when or where he died”.

 ISBE online

 

 

Introduction

 

A few ifs needed here.

 

If Nehemiah were also the scribe Ezra, as I have tentatively proposed in my article:

 

Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor

 

https://www.academia.edu/36726699/Ezra_the_Scribe_Identified_as_Nehemiah_the_Governor

and if Ezra (possibly then, Nehemiah) did, as I have also surmised, die the death of Razis (as Razis) in Maccabean times.

 

Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section

 

https://www.academia.edu/36726532/Ezra_Father_of_the_Jews_dying_the_death_of_Razis._Part_One_Introductory_section

 

because Razis, given his supreme importance, must surely (despite the affront to the conventional chronology) be Ezra, hence my Part Two:

 

 “Razis” of 2 Maccabees likely to be an aged Ezra

 

https://www.academia.edu/36736205/Ezra_Father_of_the_Jews_dying_the_death_of_Razis._Part_Two_Razis_of_2_Maccabees_likely_to_be_an_aged_Ezra

 

then it would follow that Nehemiah had, as Razis (= Ezra), died the death of Razis.

 

Biblical Nehemiah thrust into AD time

 

The “historical records … are poor” for the presumed Jewish leader, Nehemiah ben Hushiel, because there never was any historical C7th AD Nehemiah ben Hushiel.

The whole reconstruction is a weird projection into supposed AD time of a real history that had occurred way back in BC time, during the Persian empire.

I have shown this abundantly in my series:

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time

 

https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Two: The Nahum Factor

 

https://www.academia.edu/27967308/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Two_The_Nahum_Factor

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Three (i): A Late, Fake Persian Empire

 

https://www.academia.edu/30037958/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Three_i_A_Late_Fake_Persian_Empire

 

and (continued):

 

https://www.academia.edu/30039411/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Three_ii_A_Late_Fake_Persian_Empire_continued_

 

It therefore follows that this fake (supposedly second) “Nehemiah” could not have been the “leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius”.

Not only, though, because the AD Nehemiah did not exist, but also because of some very serious historical anachronisms associated with “Heraclius”.

See e.g. my multi-part series, beginning with (Part One):

 

Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh

 

https://www.academia.edu/29706064/Heraclius_and_the_Battle_of_Nineveh

 

See also the related and extensive:

 

Ghosts of Assyria’s Past Haunting ‘Middle Ages’

 

https://www.academia.edu/31869160/Ghosts_of_Assyrias_Past_Haunting_Middle_Ages

 

All of this terrible, pseudo-historical mish-mash has resulted in a duplication of:

 

  • officials Nehemiah; of
  • Sanballats; possibly of
  • priests Jaddua; of
  • Sheshbazzar (the AD version of him being Shahrbarāz); of
  • Persian-Sassanian Cyrus-Chosroes; of
  • Persian into Parthian (Sassanian) empires.

 

 

Mixing Persian and Maccabean eras

 

 

“Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council of the righteous” were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea”.

 

https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel

 

 

This episode concerning Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council”, albeit un-historical, seems to me to conflate the Persian era – biblically the time of Cyrus and Sheshbazzar (cf. Ezra 1:8), who here becomes (as already noted in (Part One) “Shahrbaraz” – with the Maccabean era and the demise of the elder, Razis, who did indeed jump off a wall (2 Maccabees 14:43-46):

 

[Razis] … rushed to the wall and jumped off like a brave hero into the crowd below. The crowd quickly moved back, and he fell in the space they left. Still alive, and burning with courage, he got up, and with blood gushing from his wounds, he ran through the crowd and finally climbed a steep rock. Now completely drained of blood, he tore out his intestines with both hands and threw them at the crowd, and as he did so, he prayed for the Lord of life and breath to give them back to him. That was how he died.

 

Now, what makes the description of Nehemiah’s “council of the righteous … [throwing] themselves off the city walls” is the fact that I have identified Razis above, from 2 Maccabees, with Ezra himself:

 

Death of Ezra the Scribe

 

https://www.academia.edu/36736367/Death_of_Ezra_the_Scribe

 

whom, in turn, I have identified (albeit tentatively) with Nehemiah:

 

Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor

 

https://www.academia.edu/36726699/Ezra_the_Scribe_Identified_as_Nehemiah_the_Govern

 

Although the Persian empire period would not actually be perfectly contemporaneous with the Maccabean and Hellenistic period, as the above mish-mash might suggest, the two periods are far closer in time (by centuries) than the conventional history would have it.

And the biblical Nehemiah may perhaps be the link:

 

Nehemiah bridges Persia and Greece

 

https://www.academia.edu/36727668/Nehemiah_bridges_Persia_and_Greece

 

And even more so now would this apply if Nehemiah were also to be identified with the Maccabean Razis, a connection I would not want to force at this early stage.

 

However, if this connection does apply, then the conventional Persian-Greek history will need to be shrunk even more radically still.

 

 

 “No contemporary accounts”

of Nehemiah ben Hushiel

 

 

“… Nehemiah ben Hushiel was appointed governor of Jerusalem. There are reports that he was a strong young man, handsome and adorned in royal robes, but actually we know very little about his reign because no contemporary accounts have survived”.

 

Meir Loewenberg

 

 

 

 

There are “no contemporary accounts” of Nehemiah ben Hushiel because he was not a real AD personage, but was a phantom based upon the biblical Nehemiah of BC time.

 

That is why the character is variously described as “enigmatic”, as ‘poorly attested historically’, or “thought to be a historical figure”.

 

According to what we read of “Nehemiah ben Hushiel” at The Free Social Encyclopedia: https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel

 

Nehemiah ben Hushiel is an enigmatic figure. He is thought to be a historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is best known as a figure who appears in many medieval Jewish apocalyptic writings. In these writings he is cast as the Messiah ben Joseph who is an Ephraimite.

 

Background

 

In 590-591 CE according to Karaite sources the Exilarch Haninai was put to death by Khosrau II for supporting Bahram VI

 

Mackey’s comment: I have already discussed in various articles the historical anomalies associated with Heraclius (e.g. Nineveh).

The name “Haninai” here is suspiciously like the “Hanani” and “Hananiah” connected with the biblical Nehemiah (7:2): “I put in charge of Jerusalem my brother Hanani, along with Hananiah the commander of the citadel, because he was a man of integrity and feared God more than most people do”.

 

The next Exilarch Haninais’ son Bostanai would not reign until around 640 CE. Bostanai would be the first Exilarch under Arab rule. This would leave a fifty-year gap where no Exilarch would have reigned.

….

It is thought that after Haninai was put to death, Khosrau II suspended all forms of Jewish self-governance and created many difficulties for rabbinical academies. By 609 CE, both of the major academies Sura and Pumbedita are known to have been holding classes and led by a Geonim.

 

Account

 

The historical records from this period are poor. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is thought to be an historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius.

Jacob Neusner guesses that Jews of the west supported Khosrau II against the Byzantines either not knowing or not caring about his persecution of the Exilarchs and suppression of Jews in the east. Frank Meir Loewenberg speculates that in order to gain Jewish support Khosrau II appointed an Exilarch of his choosing. Named Hushiel, this Exilarch had a son named Nehemiah – hence Nehemiah ben Hushiel. According to this guess Nehemiah was placed as the symbolic leader of the Jewish forces.

The Persian Sassanians, commanded by Shahrbaraz, were joined by Nehemiah

 

Mackey’s comment: As also previously discussed, this is an appropriation of the era of Ezra-Nehemiah, the ancient Persian era, with “Khosrau” replacing Cyrus; Shahrbaraz replacing Sheshbazzar; and Nehemiah ben Hushiel replacing Nehemiah ben Helcias.

 

… and the wealthy Jewish leader Benjamin of Tiberias, who had mustered a force of Tiberian Jews. The combined force captured Jerusalem in 614 CE without resistance. Nehemiah was then appointed the ruler of Jerusalem. He began the work of making arrangements for the building of the Third [sic] Temple, and sorting out genealogies to establish a new High Priesthood.

 

Mackey’s comment: Is this not basically what the biblical Nehemiah did?

 

After only a few months, a Christian revolt occurred. Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council of the righteous” were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea. The Christians were able to briefly retake the city for 19 days before the walls were breached by Shahrbaraz’s forces.

In 617 CE, the Persians reversed their policy and sided with the Christians, probably because of pressure from Mesopotamian Christians. It has been suggested that Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed then. However, it does not appear that Jews were violently expelled from Jerusalem as Sebeos thought. Instead, Modestos’ letter seems to imply that further Jewish settlers were banned from settling in or around Jerusalem. A small synagogue on the Temple Mount was also demolished.

 

Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah)

 

Another medieval Hebrew apocalypse the Otot ha-Mašiah also casts Nehemiah ben Hushiel as a Messianic leader. It gives a less detailed account but is also thought to be dated to this period.

The following texts also mention Nehemiah and they are all similar to ’Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah). For example, Nehemiah will confront Armilos with a Torah scroll in all of them and in some cases the text is almost identical. The texts are Tefillat (Prayer of) R. Shimon b. Yohai, ’Otot of R. Shimon b. Yohai and Ten Signs ….

 

Mackey’s comment: “Messianic”?

If I am correct with my radical revision of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, as set out in my article:

 

A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ

 

https://www.academia.edu/36672214/A_New_Timetable_for_the_Nativity_of_Jesus_Christ

 

then the life (very long, I believe) of the biblical Nehemiah may just have overlapped with the beginnings of Jesus Christ as a child on earth.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Biblical Nehemiah and Nehemiah ben Hushiel

Published July 20, 2018 by amaic
Image result for nehemiah building jerusalem

 

Part One:

A very “poor” history indeed

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“The historical records from this period are poor. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is thought

to be an historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius”.

 https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel

 

 

 

 

The “historical records … are poor” because there never was any historical C7th AD Jewish leader Nehemiah ben Hushiel. The whole reconstruction is a weird projection into supposed AD time of a real history that had occurred way back in BC time, during the Persian empire.

I have shown this abundantly in my series:

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time

 

https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Two: The Nahum Factor

 

https://www.academia.edu/27967308/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Two_The_Nahum_Factor

 

Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Three (i): A Late, Fake Persian Empire

 

https://www.academia.edu/30037958/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Three_i_A_Late_Fake_Persian_Empire

 

and (continued):

 

https://www.academia.edu/30039411/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time._Part_Three_ii_A_Late_Fake_Persian_Empire_continued_

 

It therefore follows that this fake (supposedly second) “Nehemiah” could not have been the “leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius”.

Not only, though, because the AD Nehemiah did not exist, but also because of some very serious historical anachronisms associated with “Heraclius”.

See e.g. my multi-part series, beginning with (Part One):

 

Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh

 

https://www.academia.edu/29706064/Heraclius_and_the_Battle_of_Nineveh

 

See also the related and extensive:

 

Ghosts of Assyria’s Past Haunting ‘Middle Ages’

 

https://www.academia.edu/31869160/Ghosts_of_Assyrias_Past_Haunting_Middle_Ages

 

All of this terrible, pseudo-historical mish-mash has resulted in a duplication of:

 

  • officials Nehemiah; of
  • Sanballats; possibly of
  • priests Jaddua; of
  • Sheshbazzar (the AD version of him being Shahrbarāz); of
  • Persian-Sassanian Cyrus-Chosroes; of
  • Persian into Parthian (Sassanian) empires.

 

Part Two:

Mixing Persian and Maccabean eras

 

“Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council of the righteous” were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea”.

https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel

 

This episode concerning Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council”, albeit un-historical, seems to me to conflate the Persian era – biblically the time of Cyrus and Sheshbazzar (cf. Ezra 1:8), who here becomes (as already noted in (Part One) “Shahrbaraz” – with the Maccabean era and the demise of the elder, Razis, who did indeed jump off a wall (2 Maccabees 14:43-46):

 

[Razis] … rushed to the wall and jumped off like a brave hero into the crowd below. The crowd quickly moved back, and he fell in the space they left. Still alive, and burning with courage, he got up, and with blood gushing from his wounds, he ran through the crowd and finally climbed a steep rock. Now completely drained of blood, he tore out his intestines with both hands and threw them at the crowd, and as he did so, he prayed for the Lord of life and breath to give them back to him. That was how he died.

 

Now, what makes the description of Nehemiah’s “council of the righteous … [throwing] themselves off the city walls” is the fact that I have identified Razis above, from 2 Maccabees, with Ezra himself:

 

Death of Ezra the Scribe

 

https://www.academia.edu/36736367/Death_of_Ezra_the_Scribe

 

whom, in turn, I have identified (albeit tentatively) with Nehemiah:

 

Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor

 

https://www.academia.edu/36726699/Ezra_the_Scribe_Identified_as_Nehemiah_the_Govern

 

Although the Persian empire period would not actually be perfectly contemporaneous with the Maccabean and Hellenistic period, as the above mish-mash might suggest, the two periods are far closer in time (by centuries) than the conventional history would have it.

And the biblical Nehemiah may perhaps be the link:

 

Nehemiah bridges Persia and Greece

 

https://www.academia.edu/36727668/Nehemiah_bridges_Persia_and_Greece

 

And even more so now would this apply if Nehemiah were also to be identified with the Maccabean Razis, a connection I would not want to force at this early stage.

 

However, if this connection does apply, then the conventional Persian-Greek history will need to be shrunk even more radically still.

Part Three:

“No contemporary accounts” of Nehemiah ben Hushiel

 

“… Nehemiah ben Hushiel was appointed governor of Jerusalem. There are reports that he was a strong young man, handsome and adorned in royal robes, but actually we know very little about his reign because no contemporary accounts have survived”.

Meir Loewenberg

 

 

 

 

There are “no contemporary accounts” of Nehemiah ben Hushiel because he was not a real AD personage, but was a phantom based upon the biblical Nehemiah of BC time.

 

That is why the character is variously described as “enigmatic”, as ‘poorly attested historically’, or “thought to be a historical figure”.

 

According to what we read of “Nehemiah ben Hushiel” at The Free Social Encyclopedia: https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel

 

Nehemiah ben Hushiel is an enigmatic figure. He is thought to be a historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is best known as a figure who appears in many medieval Jewish apocalyptic writings. In these writings he is cast as the Messiah ben Joseph who is an Ephraimite.

 

Background

 

In 590-591 CE according to Karaite sources the Exilarch Haninai was put to death by Khosrau II for supporting Bahram VI

 

Mackey’s comment: I have already discussed in various articles the historical anomalies associated with Heraclius (e.g. Nineveh).

The name “Haninai” here is suspiciously like the “Hanani” and “Hananiah” connected with the biblical Nehemiah (7:2): “I put in charge of Jerusalem my brother Hanani, along with Hananiah the commander of the citadel, because he was a man of integrity and feared God more than most people do”.

 

The next Exilarch Haninais’ son Bostanai would not reign until around 640 CE. Bostanai would be the first Exilarch under Arab rule. This would leave a fifty-year gap where no Exilarch would have reigned.

….

It is thought that after Haninai was put to death, Khosrau II suspended all forms of Jewish self-governance and created many difficulties for rabbinical academies. By 609 CE, both of the major academies Sura and Pumbedita are known to have been holding classes and led by a Geonim.

 

Account

 

The historical records from this period are poor. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is thought to be an historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius.

Jacob Neusner guesses that Jews of the west supported Khosrau II against the Byzantines either not knowing or not caring about his persecution of the Exilarchs and suppression of Jews in the east. Frank Meir Loewenberg speculates that in order to gain Jewish support Khosrau II appointed an Exilarch of his choosing. Named Hushiel, this Exilarch had a son named Nehemiah – hence Nehemiah ben Hushiel. According to this guess Nehemiah was placed as the symbolic leader of the Jewish forces.

The Persian Sassanians, commanded by Shahrbaraz, were joined by Nehemiah

 

Mackey’s comment: As also previously discussed, this is an appropriation of the era of Ezra-Nehemiah, the ancient Persian era, with “Khosrau” replacing Cyrus; Shahrbaraz replacing Sheshbazzar; and Nehemiah ben Hushiel replacing Nehemiah ben Helcias.

 

… and the wealthy Jewish leader Benjamin of Tiberias, who had mustered a force of Tiberian Jews. The combined force captured Jerusalem in 614 CE without resistance. Nehemiah was then appointed the ruler of Jerusalem. He began the work of making arrangements for the building of the Third [sic] Temple, and sorting out genealogies to establish a new High Priesthood.

 

Mackey’s comment: Is this not basically what the biblical Nehemiah did?

 

After only a few months, a Christian revolt occurred. Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council of the righteous” were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea. The Christians were able to briefly retake the city for 19 days before the walls were breached by Shahrbaraz’s forces.

In 617 CE, the Persians reversed their policy and sided with the Christians, probably because of pressure from Mesopotamian Christians. It has been suggested that Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed then. However, it does not appear that Jews were violently expelled from Jerusalem as Sebeos thought. Instead, Modestos’ letter seems to imply that further Jewish settlers were banned from settling in or around Jerusalem. A small synagogue on the Temple Mount was also demolished.

 

Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah)

 

Another medieval Hebrew apocalypse the Otot ha-Mašiah also casts Nehemiah ben Hushiel as a Messianic leader. It gives a less detailed account but is also thought to be dated to this period.

The following texts also mention Nehemiah and they are all similar to ’Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah). For example, Nehemiah will confront Armilos with a Torah scroll in all of them and in some cases the text is almost identical. The texts are Tefillat (Prayer of) R. Shimon b. Yohai, ’Otot of R. Shimon b. Yohai and Ten Signs ….

 

Mackey’s comment: “Messianic”?

If I am correct with my radical revision of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, as set out in my article:

 

A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ

 

https://www.academia.edu/36672214/A_New_Timetable_for_the_Nativity_of_Jesus_Christ

 

then the life (very long, I believe) of the biblical Nehemiah may just have overlapped with the beginnings of Jesus Christ as a child on earth.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Ezra and ‘Uzair

Published May 30, 2018 by amaic

Story of Prophet Uzair/Ezra a.s

Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’

dying the death of Razis

 

Part Three:

Appropriated as ‘Uzair of the Koran (Qur’an)

 

 

 

“… if the equation ‘Uzair = Ezra be valid, and there seems no reason to gainsay it, then Mohammed had either been misinformed, or had purposely invented this queer dogma”.

 J. Walker

 

 

This is the opinion of J. Walker, as expressed in his article “Who is ‘Uzair?”:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/MW/uzair.htm

Though I have been at pains to show in articles that the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) was not a real flesh-and-blood historical person – but a biblical composite.

And the same is probably true of this ‘Uzair of the Koran.

 

Walker writes:

 

A Koranic passage which has bewildered many students, is that anent … the name of ‘Uzair. It is the sole reference … in the Koran to a personage whose identity is by no means certain, but is usually equated with that of the biblical Ezra. The Sura (IX) in which it is found is of the late Medina period, and the verse in question (30) reads: “The Jews say ‘Uzair (Ezra?) is God’s son: and the Christians say, the Messiah is God’s son… How are they misguided!”

 

The interpretation of this may be taken in the expanded form found in Damir (Hayat al-Hayawan, trans. Jayakar, Vol. I. 553), as follows:-

 

“When ‘Uzair claimed that God had sent him to the Jews to renew the Pentateuch they disbelieved saying, ‘God has not placed the Pentateuch in the memory of anyone after its being lost, unless he is His son,’ so they called him, ‘Uzair ibn Allah.”

 

The difficulty that presents itself is the fact that no historical evidence can be adduced to prove that any Jewish sect, however heterodox, ever subscribed to such a tenet. What grounds were there for the accusation? Was it a figment of Mohammed’s [sic] own imagination? Rodwell frankly believes it was. Goldziher accepts it as “a malevolent metaphor for the great respect which was paid by the Jews to the memory of Ezra as the restorer of the Law and from which Ezra legends of apocryphal literature (II. Esdra, XXXIV, 37-49) originated ….” But we are inclined to inquire, if it were “a malevolent metaphor,” on whose side was the malevolence? Whence originated such an accusation? It is not probable that the Prophet uttered an indictment of this nature in a city like Medina where Jews abounded, without some foundation.

 

The Jewish post-biblical writings do not seem to yield any possible solution for this erroneous statement. The quotation from the Talmud (Sanhedrim, 21, 2) given by Geiger … to the effect that Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Law had Moses not preceded him, does not assist us in unraveling the puzzle. Lidzbarski … favors the possibility of a Jewish sect in Arabia venerating Ezra to such a degree as to deify him; thus casting shame on their orthodox brethren.

 

All these views are held on the supposition that the text of the Koranic passage is reliable. Emendations, of course, on the other hand, have been proposed, but it always seems a precarious operation to have resort to conjectural alteration in order to elucidate a troublesome text. There are two such textual emendations which have been proposed and which are worthy of mention because of their ingenuity. The first is by Casanova … who reads ‘Uzail instead of ‘Uzair, and equates with ‘Azael, who, according to the Jewish Hagada, is the leader of the “sons of God” of Genesis VI:2, 4. The second is by J. Finkel … who alters the diacritic points, substitutes z for r, and reads Aziz – “king” or “potentate”. This emended text he connects with the verse in the Psalms (2:7): “The Lord said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.”

 

In spite of such conjectures, however, Horovitz (op. cit. 167), considers that there is no reason to doubt the equation ‘Uzair = Ezra. He himself in this treatment of the subject (op. cit. 127-128) suggests in conclusion that, “it is very probable that Mohammed received his information from a Jewish or Judeo-Christian sect who revered Ezra in similar manner as certain sects did Melchisdek (See Epiphan. Haeres, LV, 1-9)”.

 

To conclude, if the equation ‘Uzair = Ezra be valid, and there seems no reason to gainsay it, then Mohammed had either been misinformed, or had purposely invented this queer dogma. Certainly among the Jews, Ezra the Scribe, the second Moses, as leader of the men of the Great Synagogue played a most important part in the editing of the Jewish Scriptures and the re-establishment of Judaism in Zion after the Captivity, but so far as is known, no Jewish sect ever held such an extreme doctrine as is herein imputed to them by Mohammed. If the idea did not germinate in Mohammed’s own mind, and since it is quite alien to Judaism, it is obviously a slanderous accusation made against the Jews by their protagonists. I would suggest therefore that perhaps the libelers were none other than their old enemies the Samaritans, who hated Ezra above all because he changed the sacred Law and its holy script. We do not readily associate the Samaritans with matters Islamic but in a very able article (in the Encyclopedia of Islam on the Samaritans) Dr. Gaster has demonstrated that Mohammed seems to have made several borrowing from Samaritan sources. May not this be another?

 

Let us look at the question through Samaritan eyes. Ezra had acted presumptuously. He had changed the old divine alphabetic character of the holy Books of the Law – a character still used and revered to this day by the rapidly dwindling Samaritan community – for the mercantile Aramaic script. He had acted in a dictatorial manner as if he were God Himself, or the very Son of God. The Samaritans, thoroughly shocked, accused the Jews of following Ezra … and accepting his new edition of the sacred text. They not only accused the Jews of altering the sacred scriptures. Dr. Gaster (in his Schweich Lectures on the Samaritans) indeed proposes to find in this the origin of Mohammed’s conception of the Tahrif, or the doctrine of the corruption of the Holy Bible by the People of the Book. For example, in Sura IV, 48: “Among the Jews are those who displace the words of the Scriptures.” If Dr. Gaster’s suggestion be correct, then Mohammed had found an ally against the Jews in the Samaritans. And if he found the accusations of the latter a useful weapon against the former in one instance, might he not do likewise in another instance, and that especially in the case of a personality like Ezra, whose name was the subject of controversy between the Jews and the Samaritans? Mohammed we know may have acquired his information from the Samaritans during his journeying to Syria, but on the other hand there might have been Samaritan off-shoots in Arabia, although no trace of such is discoverable in the historical records, unless a vestige be found in the feud of Sumair between the two Jewish tribes of Medina. That is highly problematical, and need not be stressed. But it is not at all unlikely that the source of Mohammed’s indictment of the Jews is to be found amongst the Samaritans or amongst Arab tribesmen of Samaritan strain. If we found in Samaritan literature the opposite belief that Ezra (or Uzair) was the son of Satan, we would be well-nigh sure of having settled the matter. Unfortunately, access to Samaritan records is not possible at the moment for the present writer, and the argument from silence is not of substantial value. ….

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Roman anomalies associated with Francesco Petrarch

Published May 1, 2018 by amaic
Image result for petrarch and rome

Famous Roman Republicans

beginning to loom as spectral

 

 

Part Five:

Roman anomalies associated with Francesco Petrarch

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

“Apollo was rumoured to have been an astrologer, the devil, and the god of the Saracens! Plato was considered to have been a doctor, Cicero a knight and a troubadour, Virgil a mage who blocked the crater of the Vesuvius, etc”.

 

Could some of the following, at least, be true?

(I do not necessarily accept the dates given below):

http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N07-EN-410-445.pdf

 

…. How Petrarch created the legend of the

glory of Italian Rome out of nothing

 

…. In 1974 the world celebrated 600 years since the death of Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374), the first prominent writer of the Middle Ages who, according to Leonardo Bruni, “had been the first who… could understand and bring into light the ancient elegance of the style that had been forlorn and forgotten before” ([927]).

 

The actual persona of Petrarch is nowadays perceived as mysterious, vague and largely unclear, and reality often becomes rather obfuscated. But we are talking about the events of the XIV century here! The true dating of the texts ascribed to Petrarch often remains thoroughly unclear.

Already an eminent poet, Petrarch entered the second period of his life – the period of wandering. In the alleged year of 1333 he travelled around France, Flanders and Germany. “During his European travels, Petrarch became directly acquainted with scientists, searching the libraries of various monasteries trying to find forgotten ancient manuscripts and studying the monuments to the past glory of Rome” ([644], page 59). Nowadays it is assumed that Petrarch became one of the first and most vehement advocates of the “ancient” authors who, as we are beginning to understand, were either his contemporaries, or preceded him by 100-200 years at the most.

 

Mackey’s comment: Or, some of these were – as according to this present series – fictitious, and based on real characters of the Hellenistic era.

The article continues:

 

In 1337 he visited the Italian Rome for the first time ([644], page 59).What did he see there? Petrarch writes (if these are indeed his real letters, and not the result of subsequent editing),“Rome seemed even greater to me than I could have imagined – especially the greatness of her ruins” ([644]).Rome in particular and XIV century Italy in general had met Petrarch with an utter chaos of legends, from which the poet had selected the ones he considered to fit his a priori opinion of “the greatness of Italian Rome.” Apparently, Petrarch had been among those who initiated the legend of “the great ancient Italian Rome” without any solid basis. A significant amount of real mediaeval evidence of the correct history of Italy in the Middle Ages was rejected as “erroneous.” It would be of the utmost interest to study these “mediaeval anachronisms” considered preposterous nowadays, if only briefly.

According to mediaeval legends, “Anthenor’s sepulchre” was located in Padua ([644]). In Milan, the statue of Hercules was worshipped. The inhabitants of Pisa claimed their town to have been founded by Pelopsus. The Venetians claimed Venice to have been built of the stones of the destroyed Troy! Achilles was supposed to have ruled in Abruzza, Diomedes in Apulia, Agamemnon in Sicily, Euandres in Piemont, Hercules in Calabria. Apollo was rumoured to have been an astrologer, the devil, and the god of the Saracens!

Plato was considered to have been a doctor, Cicero a knight and a troubadour, Virgil a mage who blocked the crater of the Vesuvius, etc.

All of this is supposed to have taken place in the XIV century or even later! This chaos of information obviously irritated Petrarch, who had come to Rome already having an a priori concept of the “antiquity” of the Italian Rome. It is noteworthy that Petrarch left

us no proof of the “antiquity of Rome” that he postulates. On the contrary, his letters – if they are indeed his real letters, and not later edited copies – paint an altogether different picture. Roughly speaking, it is as follows: Petrarch is convinced that there should be many “great buildings of ancient times” in Rome. He really finds none of those. He is confused and writes this about it:

“Where are the thermae of Diocletian and Caracallus? Where is the Timbrium of Marius, the Septizonium and the thermae of Severus? Where is the forum of Augustus and the temple of Mars the Avenger?

 

Mackey’s comment: These various, supposedly Republican Roman, characters, Marius, Cicero, Augustus, are (tentatively) given Hellenistic real identities in this series.

The article continues:

 

Where are the holy places of Jupiter the Thunder-Bearer on the Capitol and Apollo on the Palatine? Where is the portico of Apollo and the basilica of Caius and Lucius, where is the portico of Libya and the theatre of Marcellus? Where are the temple of Hercules and the Muses built by Marius Philip, and the temple of Diana built by Lucius Cornifacius? Where is the temple of the Free Arts of Avinius Pollio, where is the theatre of Balbus, the Amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus? Where are the numerous constructions erected by Agrippa, of which only the Pantheon remains? Where are the splendorous palaces of the emperors? One finds everything in the books; when one tries to find them in the city, one

discovers that they either disappeared [sic!] or that only the vaguest of their traces remain”. ([644])

These countless inquiries of “where” this or the other object might be, especially the final phrase, are amazing. They indicate clearly that Petrarch came to the Italian Rome with an a priori certainty that the great Rome as described in the old books is the Italian Rome. As we are now beginning to understand, these books most probably were referring to the Rome on the Bosporus. However, in the early XIV century or even later, it was ordered to assume that the ancient manuscripts referred to the Italian Rome. Petrarch had to find “field traces” of the “great Roman past” in Italy; he searched vigorously, found nothing, and was nervous about this fact.

However, the letters attributed to Petrarch contain traces of a Roman history that differs considerably from the history we are taught nowadays. For instance, Petrarch insists that the pyramid that is now considered to be “the Pyramid of Cestius” is really the sepulchre

of Remus ….

The real parochial Italian Rome of the XIV century surprised the poet greatly, since it strangely failed to concur with his a priori impressions based on the interpretation of the ancient texts which he considered correct. This most probably means that he had rejected

other evidence contradicting this “novel” opinion. The gigantic Coliseum, for instance, proved to be the castle and the fortress of a mediaeval feudal clan, and the same fate befell such “ancient” constructions as the mausoleum of Adrian, the theatre of Marcellus, the arch of Septimius Severus, etc. Plainly speaking, all of the “ancient” buildings turned out to be mediaeval. This presents no contradiction to us; however, for Petrarch, who apparently already perceived Rome through the distorting prism of the erroneous chronology, this must have been extremely odd.

Apparently, we have thus managed to pick out the moment in the Middle Ages when the creation of the consensual erroneous version of the history of Italian Rome began. This couldn’t have preceded the first half of the XIV century – although we should add that it is possible that all of these events occurred significantly later, namely, in the XVI-XVII century.

According to Jan Parandowski, “Petrarch’s arrival marks a new era in the assessment of the state of the great city’s decline. Petrarch had been the first person of the new era whose eyes filled with tears at the very sight of the destroyed columns, and at the very memory of the forgotten names” ([644]). Having wiped off the tears, Petrarch became quite industrious in what concerned the creation of the “true history” of the Italian Rome. He searched for statues, collected Roman medals, and tried to recreate the topography of Rome. Most of Petrarch’s energy was however directed at finding and commenting on the oeuvres of the “ancient” authors. The list of books that he allegedly owned survived until our days, the list that he compiled himself in the alleged year of 1336 a.d., on the last page of the Latin codex that is now kept in the National Library of Paris. Whether or not Petrarch had been in the possession of the original works of the authors, remains unknown. The following names are mentioned in the list:

Horace, Ovid, Catullus, Propercius, Tibullus, Percius, Juvenal, Claudian, Ovid, the comedians Plautus and Terentius; the historians Titus Livy, Sallustius, Suetonius, Florus, Eutropius, Justin, Orosius, Valerius Maximus; the orators and philosophers Quintillian, Varro, Pliny, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, Vitruvius, Marcian Capella, Pomponius Mela, Cassiodorus, Boetius. As well, the names of a large number of holy fathers are listed.

We ask the following questions:

Can we trust in Petrarch’s ownership of these volumes?

How was the list dated?

Did Petrarch actually hold any of the oeuvres written by the abovementioned authors in his hands, or did he just collect the names?

Do we interpret Petrarch’s statements correctly nowadays? After all, they reach us via a filter of the Scaligerian editors of the XVI-XVII century. We perceive them through the glass of a distorted chronology. Petrarch’s letters are to be studied again, if they really are his and haven’t been written or edited on his behalf a great while later. One also has to emphasize that Petrarch didn’t specifically occupy himself with the dating of the texts he found. He was looking for the “works of the ancients” – apparently without questioning whether they preceded him by a hundred years, two hundred, or a thousand. Let’s not forget that a hundred years, let alone three hundred, is a long period of time.

With the growth of his income, Petrarch founded a special workshop with scribes and secretaries, which he often mentions in his letters. Everyone knew about his infatuation with collecting old books. He mentions it in every letter he writes to his every friend. “If you really value me, do as I tell you: find educated and trustworthy people, and let them rake through the bookcases of every scientist there is, clerical as well as secular” ([644]). He pays for the findings bounteously. And they keep coming to him from all directions. He makes some important discoveries himself – thus, in the alleged year of 1333 he finds two previously unknown speeches of Cicero’s in Liège, and in 1334, Cicero’s letters to Atticus, Quintus and Brutus in Verona ([927], [644]). Let us remind the reader that according to the mediaeval legends, Cicero was a knight and a troubadour, q.v. above.

“Petrarch had reasons for considering himself to be responsible for the revival of interest in the philosophical works and essays of the great Roman orator” ([927], pages 87-88). Petrarch wrote: “as soon as I see a monastery, I head that way in hope of finding some work by Cicero.” The history of how he “discovered” the Cicero’s lost tractate titled De Gloria is very odd indeed. Its existence became known from a letter to Atticus that is attributed to Cicero. Petrarch claimed that he had allegedly discovered this priceless manuscript, but gave it to his old friend Convenevola. Who

is supposed to have lost it.

Nowadays Petrarch’s endeavours are usually written about with great pathos:

“It had really been the first one of those glorious expeditions rich in discoveries that shall be undertaken by the humanists of the generations to follow, who have journeyed like Columbus… in their search for parchments gobbled by numerous rats” ([644]). Cicero’s letters were allegedly discovered by Petrarch in the Chapter Library of Verona, where no-one had been aware of their existence. For some reason, the original was soon lost by Petrarch, and he demonstrated a copy instead.

  1. I. Chlodowsky wrote that:

“Petrarch proved a naturally born philologist. He had been the first to study the oeuvres of the ancient Roman poets, comparing different copies and using data provided by the neighbouring historical sciences… It had been Petrarch the philologer who had destroyed the mediaeval legend of Virgil the mage and sorcerer, and accused the author of the Aeneid of a number of anachronisms; he had deprived Seneca of several works that were ascribed to him in the Middle Ages, and proved the apocryphal character of Caesar’s and Nero’s letters, which had a great political meaning in the middle of the XIV century since it gave authority to the Empire’s claims for Austria”. ([927], pp. 88-89).

This is where the really important motives become clear to us – the ones that Petrarch may have been truly guided by in his “archaeological endeavours.” These motives were political, as we have just explained. We have ourselves been witness to countless examples in contemporary history when “science” was used as basis for one political claim or another. This makes chronology largely irrelevant. However, today when the characters of that epoch have long left the stage, we must return to the issue of just how “preposterous” the letters of Caesar and Nero were, and what was “wrong” in the mediaeval legends of Virgil.

The poet’s attitude to the ancient documents was far from critical analysis. Petrarch’s declarations of “antiquity” may have been made for meeting the conditions of some political order of the Reformation epoch in Western Europe (the XVI-XVII century). The order had been made to create a dichotomy between “barbaric contemporaneity” and “beauteous antiquity”. See Chron6 for details. At any rate, one clearly sees that either Petrarch or someone else acting on his behalf was creating the mythical world of antiquity without bothering about the exact epoch when Cicero’s speeches were written, and whether it had preceded that of Petrach by 200 years, or 1400. It is possible that all of this activity really took place in the XVI-XVII century and not the XIV, during the Reformation in the Western Europe, and had archly been shifted into the XIV century and ascribed to Petrarch so that it would gain the “authority of antiquity.” The reality of the XVI-XVII century, which Petrarch cites as the antithesis of “ancient civilization,” was later baptized “feudal barbarism.” ….

 

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Solomon and Charlemagne. Part Four: Carolingians a “new Israel”

Published April 27, 2018 by amaic
Image result for charlemagne

 

 by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Therefore, once Charlemagne received the imperial title, the concept of the Franks

as the “new Israel,” already circulating at court, began to intensify”.

 Constance B. Bouchard

 

 

 

So much of French regal history, Merovingian and Carolingian, smacks of the Bible.

King Chlodomer, for instance, smacks of the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14:1):

 

Chedorlaomer and Chlodomer

 

https://www.academia.edu/36500160/Chedorlaomer_and_Chlodomer?campaign=upload_email

 

Whilst King Chilperic I has been likened to ‘Herod’:

 

King Chilperic I a ‘Nero and Herod’

 

https://www.academia.edu/36461050/King_Chilperic_I_a_Nero_and_Herod

 

and, again, to the wicked Old Testament king, Ahab: “Gregory, who as bishop of Tours had confrontations with Chilperic and Fredegund, implicitly likens himself in books 5 and 6 to Elijah prophesying against Ahab and Jezebel …”. (Zachary S. Schiffman, The Birth of the Past, p. 123).

 

Along similar lines we find:

 

Queen Brunhild [as] the ‘second Jezebel’

 

https://www.academia.edu/35178294/Queen_Brunhild_the_second_Jezebel

 

And, in a supposedly later era, there is this classic:

 

Isabella of France, ‘iron virago’, ‘Jezebel’

 

https://www.academia.edu/35177416/Isabella_of_France_iron_virago_Jezebel_

 

To name just a few.

 

Perhaps even more apparent are the striking Davidic and Solomonic likenesses of the Carolingian kings. See e.g. my:

 

Solomon and Charlemagne. Part One: Life of Charlemagne

 

https://www.academia.edu/32815340/Solomon_and_Charlemagne._Part_One_Life_of_Charlemagne

 

“Emperor Charlemagne’s life bears some uncanny likenesses to
that of the ancient King Solomon of Israel and his family”.

 

and:

 

Solomon and Charlemagne. Part Two: Archaeology of Charlemagne

 

https://www.academia.edu/32815459/Solomon_and_Charlemagne._Part_Two_Archaeology_of_Charlemagne

 

“For AD history to be fully convincing and to be made to rest on firm foundations, it will need to undergo a rigorous revision similar to the one that scholars have been undertaking for BC history, with the application of a revised stratigraphy. There may be some indications that the history of Charlemagne is yet far from having been established on such firm stratigraphical foundations”.

 

No wonder that conspiracy theorists and authors, such as Dan Brown, have had so much fun with the Merovingians and Carolingians!

To give just one intriguing example of this sort of thing, we read at:

http://www.conspiracyschool.com/carolingian-empire

 

The Carolingians were partly of Merovingian descent, but more importantly, they represented the union of the once divided lineage of the several families responsible for the formation of Mithraism, mainly, the House of Herod, of Commagene, the Julio-Claudian Emperors of Rome, and the Priest-Kings of Emesa. This lineage had survived in two branches. Julia, the heiress of the Edomite royal bloodline, was the daughter of Herod Phollio King of Chalcis, whose grandfather was Herod the Great, and whose mother was the daughter of Salome. Julia married Tigranes King of Armenia, the son of Alexander of Judea. Their son Alexander married Iotape of Commagene, the daughter of Antiochus IV, from whom was descended St. Arnulf, was a Frankish noble who had great influence in the Merovingian kingdoms as Bishop of Metz, and who was later canonized as a saint, and who lived from 582 to 640 AD.[2]

 

Always tracing it all back to biblical kings.

I find it most interesting that there is a connection made here between an Antiochus IV and the biblical king Herod the Great, since, recently, I have actually made so bold as to identify the latter, Herod, as Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ of the Maccabean era:

 

Jesus Christ born in Maccabean era

 

https://www.academia.edu/36472536/Jesus_Christ_born_in_Maccabean_era

 

And I suspect that the “Antiochus IV” named in the above quote is simply, as I have written:

 

Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ Doubled

 

https://www.academia.edu/32784704/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes_Doubled

 

 

Anyway, Constance B. Bouchard has, in “Images of the Merovingians and Carolingians”, provided extra support for the Israel-like-ness of the enigmatic Carolingians and Charlemagne:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00315.x

 

Although historians do not denigrate the quite real Carolingian achievements, they are now analyzing the many models, from the kings of ancient Israel to the Caesars, to which the emperors were compared by their publicists.

….

The Carolingians themselves appear to have been very sensitive to the possibility that they would be considered rulers who enjoyed divine favor only at the pleasure of the pope. Therefore, once Charlemagne received the imperial title, the concept of the Franks as the “new Israel,” already circulating at court, began to intensify. The choice of the ancient Hebrew kings provided a model which would not be based on a connection to the papacy.42 The kings of Israel had stood halfway between their people and God, without needing the mediation of priests and certainly not of popes. As the new David and the new Solomon, Charlemagne and his heir could take on a similar position: one that required great responsibility, certainly, but one in which no one stood between them and God.

 

Not surprisingly, too, we find books and articles with titles like “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne,” by M. Garrison (in Hen and Innes (eds.), Uses of the Past).

Leave a comment

Posted in: Uncategorized

Tagged: academia.edu, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series, Jesus Christ Lord of History, pharaonic Egypt Bible bending

Posts navigation

← Older Posts

Blog Stats

  • 26,339 hits
December 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Recent Posts

  • Abimelech and Nebka
  • Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus
  • Senenmut’s originality in use of cryptograms
  • Baasha and Ahab
  • Saint Augustine and Luther

Uncategorized

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • January 2014
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013

Recent Comments

King Josiah and Prop… on A Revised History of the Era o…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

2016 Abram Abraham and Minyan Athamas academia.edu academia.edu AMAIC Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series Jesus Christ Lord of History pharaonic Egypt Bible bending academia.edu Danaans tribe Dan John R. Salverda mythology Mount Olympus Elohim Mount Zion Joseph Sisyphus Jacob Asopus Medusa Perseus academia.edu Hatshepsut Sheba House of David Solomon Senenmut Hatshepsut Abishag specialtyinterests great woman academia.edu Joseph Hellenic Gotterdammerung Thales Pythagoras Ptahhotep academia.edu Mary Queen of all Hearts according to matthew AMAIC AMAIC Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception biblical identifications Damien F. Mackey Revised History Era King Hezekiah Judah post-graduate Tiglath-pileser John R. Salverda AMAIC Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception Sacred Heart of Jesus and Eucharist John the Evangelist Book of Revelation Apocalypse Sister Faustina Divine Mercy Holy Year academia.edu amaic goldensword award Assumption August 15 Australan Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Comnception Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception australian marian academy of the immaculate conception Tertullian free Jerusalem from Athens authorship Pentateuch first five books bag and baggage BC to AD time revision Alpha and Omega series bern sadler biblical identifications Damien F. Mackey Revised History Era King Hezekiah Judah post-graduate Tiglath-pileser John R. Salverda biblical identifications discoveries blessing name of God Book of Job Tobias ‘Obadiah righteousness robe of salvation trials persecution sores Virgil Aeneid Dido Aeneas creationist flood model Danaans tribe Dan John R. Salverda mythology Mount Olympus Elohim Mount Zion Joseph Sisyphus Jacob Asopus academia.edu Danaans tribe Dan John R. Salverda mythology Mount Olympus Elohim Mount Zion Joseph Sisyphus Jacob Asopus Medusa Perseus academia.edu enyclical letter Pope Francis Lumen fidei mary blessed is She who believed Hail Mary Daughter of Zion Esarhaddon Vassal Treaties Laws of Moses four rivers genesis genesis flood adam noah genesis geography modern geology academia.edu Graham Hancock specialtyinterests Solomon Senenmut Out of Egypt prophet Nahum Shaphan gustus and Herod Augustus and Herod Image result for augustusImage result for herod the great statue Part One: Contemporaneity by Damien F. Mackey “… the rehabilitated Herod is considerably more R Haman cast lots pur feast of purim Haman dishonoured Mordecai honoured Croesus Delphi great kingdom Hammurabi as King Solomon specialtyinterests Hatshepsut Sheba Patrick Clarke Journal of Creation he faces west toward Rome and Augustus rather than east toward the Hellenistic kingdoms history philosophy biblical cultural ethical theological Mariological Christological biblically compatible archaeology stratigraphy history philosophy biblical cultural ethical theological Mariological Christological biblically compatible archaeology stratigraphy Cardinal Caesar Baronius Dark Ages Herbert Illig House of David Solomon Senenmut Hatshepsut Abishag specialtyinterests immaculate conception. professor A. Yahuda tebah Ark Noah Flood Genesis Jesus Christ Lord of History Jesus Christ Lord of History biblico historical revision academia.edu Jezebel Thyatira Joan of Arc Judith Pope St Pius X beatification Joan of Arc second Judith French saint 600th anniversary president Nicolas Sarkozy John R. Salverda Greek appropriations of Middle Easter folklore mythology academia.edu John R Salverda academia.edu Europa Jeroboam Israel white bull Zeus God Judean king David Cadmus John Salverda Moses Hermes Perseus Mopsus Musaeus academia.edu John the Baptist Bishop John Fisher parallels Judith Holofernes Sennacherib Xerxes Emmet Sweeney Simeonites Collins Thermopylae Judith Holofernes Sennacherib Xerxes Emmet Sweeney Simeonites Collins Thermopylae Panthea Abradates Judith Huldah Greek Sappho poet Lesbos Hypatia Alexandria Judith Huldah Greek Sappho poet Lesbos Hypatia Alexandria Joan of Arc Labels academia.edu Joseph Hellenic Gotterdammerung Thales Pythagoras Ptahhotep lpha and Omega Damien F. Mackey Revised History Era King Hezekiah Judah post-graduate 2007 MAIC matthew evangelist Perseus Moses wanderings Israelites Middle Bronze I people MBI John R Salverda Bellerophon academia.edu pharaonic Egypt Bible bending Pope Benedict XVI What is Truth? prophetess Miriam sister Moses dances sings idea Amazons John R Salverda Bellerophon academia.edu prophetess Miriam sister Moses dances sings idea Amazons John R Salverda Bellerophon Midgard Norse mythoogy Odin Thor Alfadur academia.edu Queenship of Mary August 22 coup Russia 1991 modern times Satan St Maximilian Kolbe Sacred Heart of Jesus and Eucharist John the Evangelist Book of Revelation Apocalypse Sister Faustina Divine Mercy Holy Year academia.edu Sacred Heart of Jesus and Eucharist John the Evangelist Sister Faustina Divine Mercy Holy Year academia.edu July 5 salvation is of Jews Jesus Messiah Solomon Senenmut Out of Egypt prophet Nahum Shaphan C. Seow specialtyinterests Solomon Senenmut Out of Egypt Suleiman the Magnificent structure matthew’s gospel Ezra the scribe the Immaculate Conception use of David

Categories

  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Member of The Internet Defense League

Uncategorized
Blog at WordPress.com. Minmin.
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD
Blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Cancel