Tag Archives: Sea Peoples

Israel’s Problem is the West, not Hamas!

Response to Ayelet Gilboa’s Letter about Hamas in Israel

Проблема Израиля – это Запад, а не ХАМАС!

Ответ на письмо Айелет Гильбоа о ХАМАС в Израиле

When I first read Ayelet Gilboa’s letter, I was shocked to the extent that I initially thought that it was eventually written by an Israeli woman with the same personal and family names as the well-known archaeologist whose publications about Tel Dor (Tell el Burj in Arabic) and several other topics pertaining to the Archaeology of Palestine draw only positive comments and praise. But no! It was the famous excavator and professor! 

UN Palestine Partition Plan 1947

The brief text (1300-1400 words) is not only a personal outburst of emotions that anyone can understand and certainly expect from everyone who happened to be exposed to such an adversity and iniquity; beyond that level, which was perhaps the main motive behind this unusual text, the Letter involved historical, sociological, religious-theological, educational, political, and geopolitical notions, considerations and suggestions that are the main reason of my present reaction and response.

Содержание

Введение

I. Огромный образовательный разрыв между израильтянами и палестинцами

II. Не существует нации без надлежащего национального строительства и национальной истории.

III. Колониальная ловушка была приготовлена евреям перед возвращением (Алия)

IV. Помощь палестинцам стать полноценной нацией с национальной историей — лучшая линия защиты еврейского государства.

V. Либо еврейские востоковеды убьют колониальный «арабский» миф, освободив все окружающие народы, либо вы все будете уничтожены.

VI. Западная колониальная фабрикация «арабов», несуществующей нации

VII. Намереваясь вернуться евреями, вы прибыли жителями Запада.

Дальнейший поиск в Интернете

Contents

Introduction

I. The enormous educational divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians

II. There is no nation without proper nation-building and National History

III. The colonial trap was prepared for the Jews before the return (Aliyah)

IV. Helping Palestinians become a proper nation with a National History is the best line of defense for the Jewish state

V. Either Jewish Orientalists kill the colonial ‘Arab’ myth, liberating all the surrounding nations, or you will all be annihilated

VI. The Western colonial fabrication of ‘Arabs’, a nonexistent nation

VII. Intending to return as Jews, you arrived as Westerners

Further online search

Introduction

Of course, if Prof. Ayelet Gilboa were a mathematician, an economist or a chemist, I would not be surprised; but her field of specialization, her knowledge of History, and her comprehension of field findings are -all- related to fights, battles, sudden attacks, and deaths. I still remember the noticeable sentence from the famous Anitta Text (the Deeds of Anitta of Kuššara), the earliest text written in an Indo-European language (i.e. Hittite): “one rainy night, Anitta conquered the city” (said about Neša or Kanesh, namely Caesarea of Cappadocia, today’s Kayseri). This is what History has always been: unexpected and unforeseen developments, involving killings and assassinations, destructions and detrimental loss.

A historian and an archaeologist are by definition the people who have to anticipate anything anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever; otherwise their life quests, interests, explorations and studies are worthless. Beyond this level, several key issues matter greatly and absolutely determine the chances of nations to survive or disintegrate: identity, integrity, cultural heritage, state conceptualization, foe identification, threat contextualization, etc.

Undeniably, there are many other also serious dimensions in this problem, like the perception of the other, the treatment of the other, and the attitude toward the other; if the ‘other’ is your enemy, you can certainly study the case in depth and eventually terminate this mutually disastrous attitude. But if a state’s attitude incessantly generates enemies, that state, however formidable at the military level, will never become viable. It is like killing Hamas military leaders; in real, historical terms, it is not a victory but a failure. Why? Because, quite unfortunately, the Israeli army turns them to Russian Matryoshka dolls! They kill one fighter, but another fighter prompts up! It is futile.

Last, but not the least, all historians and all archaeologists know that there is no ‘problem’ that lasts for 75 years; it is imperative to understand this. There are wars that lasted hundreds of years (Assyrians against Babylonians, Seleucids against Ptolemies, Romans against Iranians, etc.), but the wars were not ‘problems’. Wars are the most common normalcy of human life. It is up to a society and up to a state to decide whether they will live in war or in peace; but there is no peace with a problem that lasts 75 years. This is either a lie or a misperception; in this case, the state is clearly manipulated, managed and maneuvered without its choosing. Then, all the lies and the forgeries, the misperceptions and the fallacies must be unveiled and dealt with, if we want to make it sure that the state is not a product with expiry date.

Papyrus with the text of Wenamun

Following the 7th October terrorist attacks, all the constituent myths of Israel as a Jewish state must be questioned in depth; I use the term ‘constituent’, because I don’t want to be confused with the famous book of Zeev Sternhell. That is why I decided to publicly respond to Prof. Ayelet Gilboa’s Letter.

Dear Prof. Gilboa,

It is with great consternation that I read your Letter; this is so because I had already gone through some of your excellent papers and publications about Tel Dor, notably about ‘Dor and Egypt in the early Iron Age: An archaeological perspective of (part of) the Wenamun report’.

As I have published a book with extensive introduction, comments and the only Modern Greek translation of Wenamun (1992), I found your research very useful and quite enlightening; although I studied Egyptology in France, England, Belgium and Germany, the adventures of Wenamun is a narrative that always reminds me of Jerusalem and Mount Scopus University where I studied precisely this story with Prof. Sarah Israelit Groll back in 1984. She made a wonderful analysis of the famous 11th c. BCE account of travel, and I included many of my notes in my book, which I also dedicated to her. In addition, I had very fruitful conversations with Prof. Hayim Tadmor at the time.

The Greek edition of Wenamun, edited and commented by me; Athens, 1992

My sojourn in Israel at a time no Intifada had started was an enriching period during which I did not only visit archaeological sites and museums but I also observed and studied social, cultural, economic and political trends and situation. I later pursued my researches in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, but my conclusion about the ensued consequences of the UN Palestine Partition Plan (1947) and the then only 37-year long Palestinian Problem was very somber and dark. It was clear to my eyes that disastrous events would follow and the whole situation would erupt very badly.

Sarah Israelit Groll

I. The enormous educational divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians

It is perhaps necessary to brief you about my observations back at those days, because the same situation persisted in the period of 39 years that have passed since those days. I will start from education because I was astounded with what I observed and you already mention in your Letter three words related to ‘education’. Although Orientalist, Egyptological, Assyriological, etc. seminars and courses in European universities customarily had an international attendance and in spite of the fact that a large part of the local population was Palestinian, all the participants of the seminars of Sarah Israelit Groll were Israeli students; same for the courses of Hayim Tadmor! Not one Palestinian!

I am sure that as an Israeli academic, you understand what I am talking about. The bizarre situation would end in disaster. In Egypt, there are Egyptian Egyptologists, in Iraq there are Iraqi Assyriologists, but Palestinians do not have specialists in the different branches of Orientalism. In fact, there is no National History of Palestine at the level of the Palestinian universities and, even more catastrophically, for the primary and secondary schools. If this is truly disastrous for the Palestinians, it is absolutely calamitous for Israelis. Deracinated people are expendable stuff for all evasive connivers, and by this I don’t mean the state of Israel but the real enemies of both nations. I did not develop a comprehensive understanding of the subject when in Israel; I only collected pieces of data.

However, ten years later (1994), while teaching in Turkish and Northern Cypriot universities, I realized the depth and the extent of the problem; my Palestinian students were very happy with me speaking about their land, the locations and the monuments, but they were absolutely stupefied when I started speaking about the Peleset and their origin, the Sea Peoples and their invasions, let alone the inscriptions on the walls of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Among my students, there were Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; none of them knew about the Ark of the Covenant having been captured by the Philistines, none of them had heard anything about the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (and the frescoes transported in the National Museum of Damascus), the Samaritans, and Palestinian Aramaic.

Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, Luxor West

Ramesses III fights the Sea Peoples

The First Intifada had ended and the Oslo Accords were signed (Oslo I Accord), but I kept having a doomster’s idea about the future of that land, not because many among my Palestinian students did not trust the agreement, but on account of their ignorance of their own historical past and heritage, and of that of their presumed enemies, i.e. the Israelis. When I spoke to them about Flavius Josephus and his story concerning the encounter of Alexander the Great with the priest Jaddua in Jerusalem, my Palestinian students immediately asked me whether the Macedonian invader of Iran met with any Palestinian magistrate.

I believe that you can guess that my response astounded them even more; I referred to Eusebius of Caesarea and to his friendship with Constantine the Great. When they heard that the greatest historian of Early Christianity was a Palestinian, they were shocked and proud at the same time. Useless to add that their knowledge about the History of the Islamic World was next to nothing; they knew Ibn Hajar al Asqalani only as a name. The same is valid for Al Biruni, Tabari, Al Farabi, and many others.

Al Biruni, ‘Chronology of the Ancient Nations’

This is the beginning of the problem; as long as this situation persists, all the fights, all the security measures, all the reprisals, and -unfortunately- all the agreements will be futile or superfluous. Have a look at Birzeit University portal! There is Palestinian Archaeology, but the History of Palestinians starts with the arrival of Islam – which is a colonial lie. As you certainly know quite well, the fundamental texts with which their History starts are the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions of Ramesses III and the cuneiform Assyrian Babylonian texts of the 1st millennium BCE (mainly the Annals of the Neo-Assyrian Emperors).

II. There is no nation without proper nation-building and National History

For the Palestinians to reach the average nation level with their National History, it would therefore take an entire nation-building effort involving several Palestinian specialists, historians and writers, who would first write down a National History of Palestine. This was done in Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey, in Iran, and in several other countries, notably Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. As I have lived in many countries in Asia and Africa, I can eventually postulate a plausible response to the above statement; the serious problem that the Palestinians currently face occurs also in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, etc. That’s true; in their primary and secondary education, there is no proper, coherent, and effective presentation of their respective past and heritage.

What is even worse with all those bogus-systems of education of the aforementioned fake states is that, in the historical manuals for the primary and secondary education, there is not even proportional presentation of all the historical stages of their past and heritage; it is absolutely ludicrous that in the schools of Egypt, pupils learn about Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, Ramesses II, and Ramesses III, only to be forced to move thence straight to the Islamic times.

Today’s disastrously ignorant and perversely educated Egyptians know

– nothing about the rivalry of the 25th Cushitic (: Sudanese, called ‘Ethiopian’) dynasty with the Berbers (called ‘Libyans’) of the 26th dynasty,

– nothing about the Achaemenid Iranian invasion and rule of Egypt (let alone the famous Darius I the Great’s inscription and the re-opening of the Suez Canal),

– nothing about the Ptolemies and the Romans,

– nothing about the diffusion of Isiac cults and spirituality throughout Greece, Rome, the Roman Empire, and the rest of Europe,

– nothing about the Periplus of the Red (‘Erythraean’) Sea,

– nothing about Philo of Alexandria, Onias IV and his temple, the clashes between the Jews and the Greeks of Alexandria, the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts, Hermes Trismegistus, and the Manichaeans of Alexandria, who constituted for Diocletian a danger greater than the Christians, and many other glorious pages of the Egyptian past.

I could expand more, but I am sure that you understand quite well what I mean. But then, you don’t just have a ‘Palestinian’ problem but also an ‘Egyptian’ problem, and similarly many other problems that you as a society, as well as your present and all the previous governments, failed to even identify, let alone deal with. You did not understand that not one properly and nationally educated citizen would possibly become a terrorist. All these sick and rotten postcolonial societies are made of fake people without national identity, without any sense of their role in the History of Mankind, and without any elementary knowledge about the true History of Islam.

They therefore automatically become expendable stuff in the hands of various local and international crooks, gangsters, and pseudo-Muslim sheikhs who totally misrepresent the Islamic religion, tradition, integrity and history. Then, this is a purely colonial affair in which you and they are taken as hostages of the criminal Western European powers (France and England), and of their successor (after 1956), namely the US.

The Stela of Shaluf, issued by Darius I on the occasion of the re-opening of the Suez Canal – totally unknown to the average Egyptians

III. The colonial trap was prepared for the Jews before the return (Aliyah)

The abysmal truth is that the Western Europeans and the Americans, who always smile to you in order to exterminate you, did not send you back to your ancestral land but to the world’s worst trap that they had prepared accordingly ever since Napoleon set foot in Abuqir, west of Alexandria, back in July 1798. They deliberately produced this educational, academic, intellectual, academic, scientific, socio-behavioral and cultural backwardism and obscurantism throughout the lands that they colonized in the wider region in order to duly utilize the local populations at will.

When the Zionist movement came up with the idea of the ‘return’, it was already too late. You certainly went through the excellent book by Donald Malcolm Reid “Whose Pharaohs?” (University of California Press, 2002); this is a must for every Orientalist, Africanist and political scientist. Amongst others, the book reveals to the non-specialist reader something that is very well known to all Egyptologists: only 100 years after the decipherment of the Egyptian Hieroglyphic writing by Jean-François Champollion was an Egyptian Egyptologist properly formed at last.

This colonial attitude, behavior and environment corresponded to the interests of the French, the English and the Americans, but as you know quite well, they did not live in Algeria, Egypt or Syria; they effectuated brief or long sojourns there. If suddenly things turned worse, they could go back home. Even the Pied-Noirs left in 1962 in a rather anodyne form. But for you this situation can become lethal. You therefore truly need to open your eyes now!

You are not surrounded by Muslims; your ancestors were in the Ottoman Empire, in Mamluk Egypt, in Umayyad Cordoba, and in Abbasid Baghdad. And they lived in peace with the Muslims at the time. Maimonides left Cordoba and lived in Morocco, Palestine and Egypt, but he did not go to France or England. Quite unfortunately, you do not live at the time of Moshe ben Maimon, and your neighbors are not true Muslims but misfortunate people who, after a long period of cultural-intellectual-spiritual decadence and social decay, were defaced because of the colonial rule, impaired by the Orientalists, and fooled by uneducated political stooges, idiotic military officers, and ignorant pseudo-imams. Your neighbors constitute merely a well-produced expendable stuff. You can call them robots, cyborgs or humanoids, if you like, because they are fully programmed to react according to the needs of their colonial masters. They are totally deprived of proper education, nation-building, national dignity, historical identity, and cultural integrity.

So, can’t you see how futile it is to attempt to kill all the fighters and the leaders of Hamas? You will kill 100000 (a hundred thousand) people only to realize that the next Hamas shift will start – eventually under another name, but does this really matter? Will the next shift be made by Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Algerians, Iraqis or Pakistanis? Would you really care about this? There will always be some expendable stuff to be used by your true enemies, who really enjoy the spectacle from far. Your enemies do not dwell in Ariha (Jericho), Khalil (Hebron), Jenin or Nablus; they live in London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Dublin, Rome, Canberra, Ottawa, and Washington D.C.

IV. Helping Palestinians become a proper nation with a National History is the best line of defense for the Jewish state

So, it was your fault to move to a place that you had not properly studied and to live in your country, having an absolute disregard of the ‘others’; you should have cared about what had been done to the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the rest. And it was the fault of your ancestors, who did not notice that the name ‘Lebanon’ is a bad joke, that the country north of your borders is Phoenicia, and that its historical name should by all means be its true national name. In fact, Syriac-Aramaic is the only true national language of Lebanon, and as long as it is not proclaimed as such, the fake state of Lebanon will be a special factory that produces expendable stuff.

You were not the victims of the colonial powers until 1948; but by relocating and living among the highly victimized people of Palestine, by having as neighbors the disastrously deluded people of Lebanon (Phoenicia), Syria-Mesopotamia (Aram-Nahrain), Egypt (Kemet or Masr), and Libya-Tunisia-Algeria-Morocco (Berberia), and by failing to rescue them from their colonial engulfment first for your own sake, you became victims of the colonial powers too.

You may say that the Palestinians back in the 1890s and the 1920s did not show an interest for their pre-Islamic past and heritage; but this is a non-response! Similarly, the Egyptians back in the 1750s and the 1810s did not have an inclination to explore their pre-Islamic heritage, history and identity. It should therefore be your own true concern to explain to the Palestinians that no nation exists without historical identity and cultural integrity. And I don’t speak for the 1950s or the 1990s but the 1920s and the 1930s, because I know that you are fully aware of the progress that the Orientalist studies and disciplines made at those days.  

Over more than a century, you had the chance to contemplate and examine how you would live in peace, concord and cooperation with your neighbors in Palestine and all the surrounding lands, but you failed to find the path; quite contrarily, you truly disregarded them all in exactly the same colonial manner that the gangsters of England, France and America have dealt with the indigenous populations that they colonized.

The very disastrous result was that you wanted to return to the ‘Promised Land’ as Jews, but you arrived as non-Jewish Westerners. The entire problem exploded when in 1969 the then Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in an interview with Frank Giles (The Sunday Times) made the paranoid statement that “there was no such thing as Palestinians”. In real terms, the absurd sentence was more lethal than Hamas attack because it forced you to disregard all the Palestinians, to act in your ancestral land as colonial aliens, and to push the undeniably ancient nation of Palestinians to the most extreme forms of resistance, reaction and retaliation.

The problem had already existed for more than two decades before Golda Meir’s disastrous maxim; its earlier form encompassed also the nonsensical appellation ‘Israeli Arabs’ for the Palestinians who stayed within the territory of Israel after the 1948 war, thus becoming Israeli citizens. In fact, there are no Arabs at all! This was the colonial invention that plunged the entire region between the Atlantic and Pakistan in chaos, ignorance, obscurantism and hatred.

Peleset/Palestinians and other Sea Peoples as depicted on the walls of Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramesses III, more than 3150 years before Golda Meir’s absurd words

V. Either Jewish Orientalists kill the colonial ‘Arab’ myth, liberating all the surrounding nations, or you will all be annihilated

Actually, there were no Turks, no Iranians, no Uzbeks, no Kazakhs, no Somalis, no Yemenites and no Indians prior to the colonial arrival in all those vast lands. The concept of ‘nation’ in the Eastern Roman Empire, in the Islamic Caliphates, and in the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires was very different, and the connotation of this word involved totally different worldview and world conceptualization. As you know quite well, this fact goes back in time and it does indeed concern the Achaemenid Empire of Iran and even earlier universal(-ist) states.

However, if the modern concept of nation had to be diffused from the African Atlas to Oman and from North Mesopotamia to Hadhramaut, the national identity at the local level would have to be based on the historical knowledge, the archaeological record, the philological documentation, and the interdisciplinary interpretation of the data. The cultural integrity of a nation does not encapsulate any ideological indoctrination or a theological approach but popular religion, folklore and traditions that may eventually antedate the arrival of the latest prevailing religion. 

Not a drop of Arab blood can be found in the veins of all the various nations of the wider region; similarly not a vestige of Arab culture can be attested among them. 

The Libyans, the Tunisians, the Algerians, the Moroccans and the Mauritanians are all ethnically Berbers.

The Egyptians are ethnically Copts — except for few Berbers in the NW, the Nubians in the South, and the Beja in the SE.

The Sudanese belong to many nations, either Cushitic (like the Beja, the Furi, and the Arabic-speaking people of the central provinces) or Nilo-Saharan {like the Nubians, the Nuba, and the Berta, who also live in the Benishangul province of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia)}. 

The Yemenites and the Omanis are the descendants of the Ancient Yemenites and Ancient Omanis, who were ethnically Semitic but not Arab. Ancient Yemenite inscriptions have been deciphered thanks to the Ancient Abyssinian writing and language (Ge’ez), which is entirely Yemenite of origin (and this shows that the Amhara and the Tigray are not Africans, but Yemenites who crossed the Red Sea and settled initially around Massawa). As you know, during the last 100 years before Islam, there were several bilingual inscriptions Sabaean and Arabic, Himyaritic and Arabic, and this shows that the idea that the Yemenites are Arabs is entirely wrong. Simply, they were linguistically Arabized because they accepted Islam; but this fact did not turn them to Arabs, pretty much like the African Americans are not Anglo-Saxons. 

Last, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, the Jordanians, the Palestinians, the Arabic-speaking populations of SE Turkey and SW Iran, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris, and the Emiratis are Aramaeans (Semitic like the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the Canaanites, and the Yemenites, but not Arab). 

In this wide region, the Aramaeans were linguistically Arabized because they accepted Islam; but this fact did not turn them to Arabs.

VI. The Western colonial fabrication of ‘Arabs’, a nonexistent nation

In fact, «Arab Nation» has only been a fake Western colonial Orientalist construction to which the Western scholars attributed any repugnant trait they wanted in order to make it as disgusting as possible. It was an ahistorical, illusory description and an intentional, fallacious fabrication; its use was double.

First, the concept was gradually projected onto all the colonized populations of Algeria, Egypt, Aden, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, Libya, etc. ‘Arabization’ campaigns were undertaken for this purpose; but as you surely understand very well, you can ‘Arabize’ only the non-Arab.

Second, colonial lies in extraordinary multitude started being propagated at home (in Western Europe and North America) as early as the beginning of the 19th c. about the Berbers, who were falsely depicted as «Arab», i.e. the fallacious construction that I have just mentioned. Europeans and Americans started then having a very wrong idea about the Berbers.

Locally, in their colonies, the French authorities did the exactly opposite work: through their stooges, they forced the Berbers to stop being culturally Berber and to become something similar to the caricature of Arab that the colonial Orientalists had constructed. For this spiritual genocide to be done the criminal French colonials killed as many Berbers as they needed; they prohibited pre-Islamic Berber popular traditions and sacred festivals in order to tyrannically turn the existent Berbers into something nonexistent: «Arabs»; they did their best to uproot Berber language and to extinguish Berber identity. 

This is the trickery that all the silly political leaders, cruel military officers, fake academics, servile journalists, and ignorant pseudo-sheikhs from Morocco to Oman and from Syria to Yemen failed to detect, let alone understand; but before 250 years, not one man among their ancestors would identify himself as ‘Arab’. Yet, the elites of the colonized nations fell into the trap that the Western colonials prepared for them, thus causing enduring disastrous conditions for their respective peoples.  

– What is an «Arab»? 

– The lawless villain, the filthiest rascal, the most execrable felon!

This is the Western response.

But this concept is unreal; it does not exist.

It is the delusional fabrication of the Orientalists.

Have a look at Delacroix’s Sardanapalus, and you will grasp the extent of the extreme fallacy!

In fact, after Prophet Muhammad, historical Arabs ceased to exist; by accepting Islam, they were culturally Aramaized and totally de-Arabized. All the same, 18th-19th c. European colonials fabricated them and, by tyrannically projecting them onto Berbers, Copts, Aramaeans, Cushites and Yemenites, they carried out multiple spiritual genocides. This claim is not extraordinary because, in the process, the criminal Western colonials exterminated the Berber, the Coptic, the Cushitic Sudanese, the Yemenite, the Aramaean cultural integrity, tradition and superiority which so much disturbed the Europeans and their evildoing. 

Tadmor-Palmyra, a high place of Aramaean heritage

Ethnically viewed   

Ethnically speaking, historical Arabs do not exist either. They progressively vanished after they spread outside the Arabian Peninsula because they settled in different lands and there they intermingled with Aramaeans, Iranians, Turanians, Indians, Yemenites, Copts, Sudanese Cushites, Somali Cushites, Berbers and even Iberians (Spain and Portugal). From another viewpoint, the Arabs became ethnically extinct because many Muslims from various parts of the Islamic World used to relocate and settle in the Hejaz in numerous waves, thus extensively amalgamating with the local Arabs who remained in their ancestral land. This process took place uninterruptedly for no less than 1400 years.

Linguistically viewed

Linguistically, Arabic is a dead language — just like Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Ancient Phoenician, and Biblical Hebrew. This is easy to understand because the so-called ‘Arab-natives’ (a totally fallacious term) cannot fluently read the texts written by a major author of the Golden Era of Islam, namely Al Farabi, Al Biruni, Ibn Sina, etc.

Classical Arabic was developed as language on the basis of Quranic Arabic and incorporated numerous Aramaic, Farsi, Coptic and other words during the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization. But none of these languages is the mother tongue of any person today. The mixed dialects that prevail from place to place cannot become the proper national language of a sound nation. The so-called Modern Standard Arabic ( الفصحى) is an alien Orientalist construction and standardization, which apparently failed to support proper education in any country it was used. 

Quite contrarily, Berber, Coptic, Afaan Oromo, Mahri Yemenite, and Syriac Aramaic have the historicity and the cultural interconnectivity with the historical heritage of the respective nations and can therefore become the true national languages of those targeted and deliberately divided nations. But then, this great perspective would calamitously damage the interests of France and England; this would be inevitably so, because -to offer an example- the entire North Africa from Siwa to Nouakchott would automatically become an enormous Hamitic Berber confederate secular state the size of Brazil (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Chad, Niger and Mali) with all the chances to become a major power worldwide.

Modern Standard Arabic, imposed by the colonial powers, was then the lethally divisive factor, which triggered educational-academic obscurantism, socio-economic misery, unnecessary political divisions, endless fratricidal conflicts, incredible bloodshed, unprecedented oppression (from the part of the Pan-Arabist idiots) and strong chances for an Islamist drift (and this is what we observed at last).

Culturally viewed

Last, culturally, the Arabs disappeared when they accepted Islam (610-632 CE) in the form in which it was preached by Prophet Muhammad, because in real historical terms, the process of Islamization of the Arabs (acceptance of the ‘new’ faith by them) is tantamount to cultural Aramaization. They abandoned the old Arab idolatrous, nomadic and barbaric culture, and they accepted Aramaean culture with a religion that was slightly different from Aramaean Nestorian Christianity. For this reason, the early caliphates were consolidated in Syria and Mesopotamia, whereas Hejaz remained a marginal zone throughout the Islamic times.  

And that’s why the History of Early Islam has been so much distorted in Western universities where they teach a false, extremist (and quite often Arabized) version of History only to show that the execrable traits of this fictitious «Arab» concept involve razzias (raids), thefts, rapes, conquests, killings, massacres, atrocities, unrestrained rage, uncouth behavior, womanizing, homosexuality, pedophilia, and all the other hideous acts that you can imagine. In fact, properly fabricated in the darkness of the Orientalist ateliers, 19th c. Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are communicating vessels.

As long as Berber, Coptic, and Syriac Aramaic do not become respectively the official national languages in all these states, with Mahri in Yemen, Dhofari in Oman, Beja in Eastern Sudan, Furi in Western Sudan, and Afaan Oromo in Central Sudan, all the useless and fake postcolonial states will be simple playthings pitilessly thrown against one another or multi-divided and ruined. Without having formerly been anti-Jewish, these colonized populations have intentionally and craftily been turned into the enemies of the Jews or of anyone whom the colonial powers intend to involve as per their evildoing and schemes.

Call to Prophethood; miniature from a folio manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru’s Majma’ al-Tavarikh (Compendium of Histories); 15th c.

Because you failed to identify the colonial deeds carried out locally and regionally, you arrived in the trap which was set there and you did not understand that Aliyah would automatically backfire on you, if you did not deploy an enormous academic, educational, intellectual, scientific and cultural effort to liberate all those different nations from the already implanted colonial myths that victimized them. Then, the ignorant sheikhs, who have no idea about the true, historical Islam, and the knowledgeable Israeli academics, who know much but fail to identify the vicious colonial plots of England, France and Vatican, are equivalently and unequivocally driven to mutual calamity, terminal destruction, and undeserved ruination. Can’t you see that?

All the diverse nations that surround you failed to find in you the true ally against the evil colonial powers that had already ruined them; and you failed to find in them your sole valuable partner and protector against the Western forces that mercilessly killed you in Europe and now want to exterminate you in Asia. The reciprocal error threatens you all; the indigenous nations were in a long decadence process, but you had a very crucial problem of identity: the right to the Promised Land, which has -as you know quite well- questionable historical credentials, is not relevant to Law, International Law, Politics, International Relations or Human Rights but exclusively to Religion, namely the Ancient Hebrew Religion and its surviving branch, i.e. Judaism.

VII. Intending to return as Jews, you arrived as Westerners

I don’t intend to reproduce here the vast literature that many modern rabbis like the deferential Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro have created, rejecting and condemning Zionism as an alien system that ‘hijacked’ Judaism (see below); but I am sure that you are well aware of their approaches, analyses and criticisms. There is however an undeniable fact; you, in your Letter, described yourself as “a sworn leftist activist”. The statement is the epicenter of your personal problem, and at the same time, it highlights aspects of the overall problem.

Dear Prof. Gilboa,

I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a ‘leftist Jew’; modern concepts are alien to all religions; the very paradoxical and totally unnatural marriage of Anglo-Saxon ‘politics’ and French ‘Lumières’ with local cultures and regional religions has caused diverse types of wars and conflicts which are entirely due to the monstrous essence of the Western system of governance that we call politics; the maladroit and rogue system is totally unsuitable to all, because it disregards, erodes and eradicates all local traditions, cultures, and popular religions.  

Various types of systems of governance existed throughout Human History; in every land, governance reflected local traditions, world conceptualization, and moral values. The systems were different from but not opposite to one another; that’s why it was easy for Benjamin of Tudela, who was familiar with the tawa’if (taifas) of the Iberian Peninsula, to accept all the locally diverse types of rule and spend time peacefully in the lands that he visited in the second half of the 12th c. But in the colonized and therefore traumatized region where you intended to return in the first half of the 20th c., a terrible shock had occurred due to the overwhelmingly rejected, colonially/tyrannically enforced, Western intervention and brutal regime change that the disreputable Sykes-Picot trash had triggered.

There cannot be ‘Socialist Christian’, ‘Liberal Muslim’, ‘Leftist Jew’, ‘Extreme Right Hindu’ or ‘Conservative Buddhist’; Renaissance, Classicism, Enlightenment and the Western European – North American political system of governance prevailed in those lands as a local reaction against, and rejection of, the earlier normal, natural and historical systems of governance.

What is abnormal in its own place cannot possibly become the norm in another location!

But unfortunately many Jews, returning to the ‘Promised Land’ in the early 20th c., arrived there not as true Jews, but as real Westerners.

How can you not see the enormous difference that separates you from the Sephardic Jews who were invited to the Ottoman Empire in 1492 by Bayezid II?

They arrived as Jews, but you arrived as Westerners.

What do you think the fate of the expelled (from Spain) Jews would have been in 1492, had they arrived in the Ottoman Empire under the mask of a Crusader?

Göke was the flagship of Kemal Reis; before constructing the large ship (1495), he was dispatched (1492) from Istanbul to Spain in order to transport Andalusian Jews to Izmir (Smyrna) and Selanik (Salonica).

Certainly, pretty much like nowadays, the Jews who arrived in the Ottoman Empire in the first half of the 20th c. belonged to different branches of Judaism, movements and systems of faith; but the undeniable fact that many of them were Westernized fully jeopardized your chances of peacefully settling and living with the indigenous populations.

It was only normal for them to consider and perceive you negatively as an extension of Western colonialism or as a second stage of colonial enmity and hatred against both, the Christians and the Muslims of Palestine.

And you, by arriving as Westerners, only aggravated this feeling, whereas if you returned as real Jews, you would be accepted and befriended. As you certainly understand, it is not a matter of Holocaust, because I speak for the period prior to the early 1930s.

By being the least Jewish possible, you turned your potential friends and allies into enemies.

And by being the most Western possible, you served the most anti-Jewish plans in World History; those prepared by your worst enemies.

To further reference the historical past and heritage, I will formulate two questions that highlight the terrible mistakes of the 19th–20th c. Zionist movement, its wrong practices, false visions, and calamitous practices, fully presenting them as entirely detrimental to all the Jews. I do not mean that you should not ‘return’ or that you should move to another land – which was part of deliberations as you know quite well. Quite contrarily, I want to underscore the fact that, as it happens on many other occasions, what is important is not what you do, but how you do it.

How did you not realize (as early as 1882) that, for your Aliyah plan to be easily materialized, you needed the Ottoman Empire to remain intact within its borders so that, as a sizeable realm, it had no difficulty accommodating large newcoming populations?  

Alternatively, and in the light of the emergence of Modern Turkey under Kemal Ataturk (1919-1923), how did you not realize that your Aliyah plan would be implemented with fewer obstacles only in the case of formation of a major secular confederate state named Aram Nahrain that would stretch throughout the wider region, involving the territories of today’s Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, the northern parts of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates?

Such a sizeable, anti-colonial state would ipso facto be a multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural realm in which Syriac Aramaic would be the national language, Quranic Arabic would be the religious language of the Muslims, and the numerous indigenous ethno-religious groups would peacefully live, cooperate and prosper. Only this type of state would offer reciprocal knowledge, equitable chances, and emancipatory conditions of life to all the citizens. Although many Israeli academics and statesmen were worthwhile scholars and renowned intellectuals, there was none among them to think truly out-of-the-box and identify viable solutions for the problems that you faced.

Even now, the forces are there for you to reach out to and work with; but you must first remove the repugnant colonial mask which de-Judaized and westernized you, perceive the History of Judaism in its true, Oriental, dimensions, and finally prefer Nehardea to Rome, Iran to England, Russia to France, and China to America. As soon as you think, speak and act as a Westerner, you are overwhelmingly rejected, loathed and reviled – perhaps undeservedly, but so it is! You have to open your eyes and see!

Either you will die with your Western executioners who think they can survive by using you as expendable stuff or you will survive with your Oriental brethren who think that you want to survive at their expense!

For קֹהֶלֶת (Qohelet, Εκκλησιαστής, Ecclesiastes; 7:23-24) to be proven right, you need to prove them both wrong!

כָּל־זֹה נִסִּיתִי בַחָכְמָה אָמַרְתִּי אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי רָחוֹק מַה־שֶּׁהָיָה וְעָמֹק עָמֹק מִי יִמְצָאֶנּוּ

Πάντα ταῦτα ἐπείρασα ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ· εἶπα· σοφισθήσομαι, καὶ αὐτὴ ἐμακρύνθη ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μακρὰν ὑπὲρ ὃ ἦν, καὶ βαθὺ βάθος, τίς εὑρήσει αὐτό;

Cuncta tentavi in sapientia. Dixi: Sapiens efficiar: et ipsa longius recessit a me multo magis quam erat, et alta profunditas; Quis inveniet eam?

All this I tested by wisdom and I said, “I am determined to be wise”— but this was beyond me. Whatever exists is far off and most profound— who can discover it?

Best regards,

Shamsaddin

—————————————— 

Further online search

General, introductory reading for non-specialist readership (references to Wikipedia links do not mean acceptance of the contents):

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahu-abcs-muir-cease-fire-release-hostages/story?id=104661239

Benjamin Netanyahu discusses the Israel-Gaza conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dor

https://cris.haifa.ac.il/en/persons/ayelet-gilboa/network/

http://dor.huji.ac.il/AG.html

http://dor.huji.ac.il/index.html

https://whitelevy.fas.harvard.edu/people/ayelet-gilboa

https://haifa.academia.edu/AyeletGiboa

https://www.academia.edu/108723535/Hamas_in_Israel_Letter_from_Ayelet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anitta_(king)

https://libdigitalcollections.ku.edu.tr/digital/collection/GHC/id/13139/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studien_zu_den_Bogazkoy-Texten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founding_Myths_of_Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Sternhell

https://www.academia.edu/49730654/Οι_Περιπέτειες_του_Ουεναμούν_The_Adventures_of_Wenamun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intifada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Israelit_Groll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayim_Tadmor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaddua

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Maritima

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Constantine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hajar_al-Asqalani

https://www.birzeit.edu/en

https://melc.washington.edu/people/donald-m-reid

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520240698/whose-pharaohs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-Noir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_was_no_such_thing_as_Palestinians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Terminology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seif_el-Din_el-Zoubi

https://www.academia.edu/25491609/The_Aramaeans_rise_will_transfigure_the_Middle_Eastern_Chessboard_2005_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/25552905/Islam_the_Cultural_Aramaization_of_the_Arabs_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/25553198/Aramaeans_vs_Arabs_The_fight_between_Civilization_and_Barbarism_within_Islam_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/25606449/Syria_A_Non_Arabic_Aramaean_Country_Ruled_by_the_Pan_Arabist_Puppets_of_Zionism_and_Freemasonry

https://www.academia.edu/24440061/Arab_Nation_Hoax_Geared_to_Falsify_Islamic_History_Ruin_Varied_Nations_disfiguratively_Named_Arab_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism. – Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-tRrKeAfQ

https://www.academia.edu/50114362/Βενιαμίν_εκ_Τουδέλης_Το_Βιβλίο_των_Ταξειδίων_Benjamin_of_Tudela_The_Book_of_the_Travels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_of_Tudela

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/ottoman-lands-provided-safe-haven-for-sephardic-jews-expelled-from-spain/2651488

www myjewishlearning.com/article/the-ottoman-empire/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328794

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Influx_of_Sephardic_Jews_from_Iberia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_II#Jewish_and_Muslim_immigration

——————————————-

Download the article (text only) in PDF:

Download the article (with pictures and legends) in PDF:

Israelis vs. Palestinians: 6 Concealed Historical Truths about the Lost Wars

In a previous article titled ‘Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War’, I expanded briefly on crucial historical points that the Palestinians and the entire world do not know concerning first the History of the kingdoms of Ancient Israel and Judah and second the identity of today’s so-called Jews whose outright majority (85-90%), namely the Ashkenazi Khazarians, by all means are not Jews ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously. I also pointed out that even the Sephardic Jews, who make ca. 10-15% of the so-called World Jewry, are not entitled to the Promised Land (i.e. Palestine) as per historical evidence; furthermore, I made it clear that the Sephardim do not constitute part of the Chosen People (i.e. the ten lost tribes of Ancient Israel) whose ‘return’ was prophesied in the Old Testament. The article can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/107952726/Palestinians_vs_Israelis_11_Hidden_Historical_Truths_about_a_Futile_War

The Philistines, ancestors of Palestinians, captured and abducted the Ark of the Covenant, taking it to Philistia; fresco from the Aramaean (ethnically non-Jewish) Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kamal, by the bank of Euphrates, Eastern Syria; currently in the National Museum of Damascus) with representation of the scene (middle of 3rd c. CE). Will a Palestinian find the lost Ark and take it to Gaza?

I. The Spiritual and Moral Conditions of National Resistance

In the present article, I intend to offer a different perspective, revealing other hidden truths, which disastrously impacted the warring parties, engulfing them in a war that is not truly theirs but that of their respective masters. I have however to point out beforehand that similar situations and conditions can be attested in many other lands and among different nations. It is essential for all to understand that without identity clarity and in the absence of integrity coherence, not one nation can possibly achieve real sovereignty, national independence, and genuine self-determination. If this is hard for some to assess, I can help them by making the following two academic questions:

– Yes! The Palestinians have right to Palestine; but what is it good for them to have full control of the territory of their land, “from the River to the Sea” (من النهر إلى البحر; min al-nahr ila al-bahr) as they say (the statement was officially endorsed by PLO in 1964), if this, hypothetical, ‘independent’ Palestine is going to be as subordinate, subservient, obedient and docile a state as Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Albania and many other countries, which function in reality as disreputable protectorates of the colonial powers, i.e. France, England and the US?

– Who is the idiot who believes that these countries are ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’?

They are all evil realms of besotted followers, materialistic consumers, bastard rulers, academic liars, conniving journalists, and criminal politicians; they will all perish in the Hell that they deserve, because they shamelessly and immorally utilize selected excerpts of sacred texts for their Satanic interests.

Examining the lamentable and abhorrent History of Modern Occupied Palestine, many people -irrespective of their ancestry, culture, religion, and language- make a tremendous mistake without even noticing it. They focus on the innumerable and appalling atrocities carried out by the fake-Jewish, Zionist gangsters against peaceful and innocent Palestinians who were attacked and murdered in their villages in the 1940s, 1950s and ever since. Although these observers and commentators focus on real facts and highlight the historical truth by so doing, they also commit a terrible error that totally affects their overall judgment and final conclusion. Their evaluation is unilaterally material and materialistic; they would have been correct, had we been deprived of soul, spirituality, faith, Hereafter and God. These mistaken writers and scholars commit indeed the miscalculation that the worst enemies of Mankind want them to make.

There is no science without spirituality; there is no scholarly analysis without moral; there is no knowledge without life; there is no study without soul; and there is no news without faith. We are not bodies; the adversaries of Mankind want to turn us to impotent beings disconnected from our souls and plunged in sin, lawlessness, odium and iniquity. Failing to comprehend the daily developments and facts within the only correct context, namely our double, spiritual and material, subsistence, we instantaneously become Darwinists, evolutionists, materialists, and renegades of our faith, whatever it may be.

How can we comprehend historical developments and facts by also taking into account the spiritual and the moral conditions of our everyday life? The response to this question has been known for thousands of years thanks to religious texts; we can never forget, when examining our situation, the moral and the spiritual dimensions of every single act committed by a human. It is a terrible oversight not to consider that the present life is a brief passage of our souls from the material world; the rest, i.e. the Hereafter, matters much more. In fact, this life is merely an exam that we have to pass successfully; for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

In fact, the hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians, who were indiscriminately ruined, dispossessed and murdered for the lawless, illegal, fallacious and criminal state of Israel to be set up and persist in order to spread iniquity, immorality, sinfulness, falsehood, unchastity, debauchery and inhumanity, gained eternal life in the Hereafter. What is higher distinction for a man than to exemplify the Biblical Job and the Quranic Ayyub as a lifelong innocent sufferer?

I have to add at this point that the aforementioned concept is neither Islamic nor Hebrew-Jewish nor Christian, but entirely Assyrian-Babylonian; it has first been a cardinal element of the Ancient Mesopotamian spirituality, moral, culture and civilization for centuries and millennia. Composed by Shubshi Mashra Shakkan (Šubši-mašrâ-Šakkan) in the 14th c. BCE, the primary text of Assyrian-Babylonian Wisdom ‘Ludlul bel Nemeqi’ (‘I praise the lord of wisdom’) is the first presentation of the subject. There is no originality in the Bible and the Quran; as divine revelations, they follow other earlier manifestations of the Divine among humans. In any case, about the absolute dependence of the so-called ‘Biblical world’ on the paramount civilizations of Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, I already wrote in my previous article.  

By stating the above, I do not mean that Palestinians should accept their fate passively and submit themselves to the dictates of the alien, sinful and criminal usurpers of the fair name of Ancient Israel and of the historical Jewish faith in order to perform the most monstrous and the most inhuman deeds in the History of Mankind. No! The Palestinians should never accept the villainous falsehood of the Ashkenazi Khazarians and the Zionist agenda.

However, there is an enormous difference between the resolute rejection of the lawless Ashkenazi Khazarian rule over Palestine and the self-inculpation of the Palestinians, who believe that they can do to the Israelis what the Israelis did to them. This is a trap for every faithful person; by hating enemies and by acting like them, humans lose their purpose in life, their faith and their soul. This can hardly be an option.

The spiritual and moral conditions of national resistance are however a vast topic that imposes extensive discussion; this is not however the topic of present article. All the same, I can herewith offer an example to best illustrate my approach. Perceiving the fabrication of the Zionist state as an entirely colonial affair and evaluating the evil behavior of the Zionists as clearly colonial of nature, we have to conclude that the famous Palestinian academic and philologist Edward Wadie Said (1935-2003) played a far more successful part in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine (and many other colonial and postcolonial lands) than Yasser Arafat (1929-2004).

Thanks to Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’ (1978, Pantheon Books, 368 p.), millions or dozens of millions of people across the Earth realized that it is not enough that the former colonial ruler goes for you to be properly and completely decolonized (and since the colonial powers were Western) de-Westernized. Yasser Arafat created the structures of a resistance movement in Palestine; the Palestinian National Authority, following the Oslo Accords (1993-1995), is certainly to be credited to Yasser Arafat. But how much did living standards among Palestinians improve ever since? Did Palestinians achieve self-determination in the process?

Were the Oslo Accords respected by the state of Israel or effectively contravened? An objective observer would easily conclude that the agreements were misinterpreted and disrespected by the Zionist state which benefitted from the said treaty more than the Palestinians did.

Meanwhile the Palestinians did not even study and do not know at all the nature, the past, and the true identity of their enemies. Even worse, due to their commitment to endless but purposeless fight, killings, bombings, and conflict, the Palestinians did not even set up a proper national education among themselves and did not make of their past, heritage and identity a consciously and actively known reality of their cultural integrity and everyday life.

Making of devious political ideologies, like Pan-Arabism and Islamism (political islam), the foundation of their struggle for liberation was an extremely bad and detrimental mistake, which engulfed Palestinians in ineffective and unnecessary sacrifices that lead nowhere. Religion cannot be involved in governance; even more so when the type of governance is the vicious and inhuman modern system that we call ‘politics’, which did not exist in the past. When contaminated with politics, false religion opens the gates of Hell for the idiots who think they can use sacred texts and references to the divine, spiritual universe for their material benefit.

There cannot be politicization of religious affairs and there cannot be religization of political affairs.

What comes as nefarious surprise atop of all this is the fact that, when you are idiotic enough to rely on others for your liberation, then you inevitably become the victim of foreign schemers, who are not merely diplomats, agents and military officers; all the same, the truly worst in this case is that, when your supposed liberation becomes the concern of your interlocutor, you soon turn out to be a puppet, and your nation becomes merely the expendable material that is necessary not to your friends, allies or protectors (read: masters), but to other forces that control the governments and the universities of those ‘allies’, while staying in the shadows of the backstage.

That’s why Edward Said’s path was far more successful than that of Yasser Arafat. When it comes to the Palestinian independence, this option will certainly never happen, because behind the front office of the anti-Israeli company (namely PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.), there is a totally unknown back office (i.e. governments, states and secret organizations) that has developed for Palestine plans worse that the fake state of Israel itself.

II. 6 Points of Historical Clarification about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict

I will now reveal a series of misperceptions, omissions, and falsehood diffused worldwide about the so-called ‘Palestinian Problem’. As a matter of fact, most people (Palestinians and Israelis included) have no clue of what is going on there; instead, totally false narratives are systematically spread in order to obscure and conceal the reality.

Point 1: Palestinians are not Arabs, but victims of Arabization and Pan-Arabism.

As it happens in every other Arabic speaking country, Palestinians were made to believe that they are Arab, but they are not at all. This misconception and fallacy was fabricated by 19th c. colonial Orientalists and imposed locally in every detached province of the Ottoman Empire that was colonized by the English and the French; the Americans followed in their footsteps. The false and evil concept targeted the true identity of all the peoples of the vast area, who were speaking very diverse languages and dialects from Morocco to Yemen to Oman. To implement their calamitous political decision, the colonial powers launched many Arabization campaigns in order to cut every chance of those -very different from one another- nations to launch a proper nation building process. It goes without saying that all this evildoing was carried out long before the formation of the political ideology of Pan-Arabism.

In striking contrast to the colonial evildoing and the Arab falsehood, the Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans and Mauritanians were -all- Berber of origin. The Egyptians were Copts, if we don’t count the Berbers in the Northwestern confines, the Nubians of the South, and the Beja (Blemmyes) of the Southeast provinces of Egypt. The Arabic-speaking Sudanese were Cushitic of ancestry, i.e. the descendants of both, the ancient kingdoms of Kerma, Napata (Cush) and Meroe and the Christian realms of Makuria and Alodia. Furthermore, the Arabic-speaking populations of the Ottoman provinces in Asia (in today’s Syria, SE Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, SW Iran, UAE, and Qatar) were all Aramaeans. Last but not least, the Yemenites and the Omanis were all of Ancient Yemenite and Omani origin, and they were totally unrelated to the Arabs of Hejaz; Arabs existed only there and in the desert of the Arabian Peninsula. All the Sabaean, Qatabani, Himyarite and Hadhrami inscriptions that have been excavated in Yemen, deciphered, read and published testify to the historical truth that not even one drop of Arab blood can be found in Yemenite veins.

The gradual linguistic Arabization of the Palestinians was due to the process of Islamization; but like all the other Syriac Aramaic-speaking populations of the wider region, the Palestinians preserved their culture, tradition and ethnic identity. When it comes to ethnic amalgamation, the few Arabs who settled in Palestine could not form a noteworthy component and modify the ethnic identity, because the population of Hejaz at the time of prophet Muhammad did not amount to that of one big city in Syria, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Furthermore, many people have become the victims of the Orientalist deception and the fallacy of ‘Arab conquests’; as a matter of fact, there were no Arab conquests at all. The early Islamic invasions were undertaken initially (633-636) by Arabs and Yemenites proselytes; later (636-642), the Islamic armies also incorporated many Aramaean converts originating from Damascus, parts of South Syria, and South Mesopotamia. After 642, the fighters of Islam had also Coptic neophytes.

Point 2: The Aramaean and Philistine Past of the Palestinians

Before the arrival of Islam, the Palestinians had been linguistically Aramaized, like many other nations of the wider region; in fact, Babylonians, Phoenicians and Jews were also linguistically Aramaized during the Late Antiquity, i.e. the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, Roman, Sassanid and Eastern Roman times (539 BCE-622 CE). During that period, the Palestinians amalgamated with Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Edomites (Idumeans), Egyptians, Macedonians, Greeks and Romans. Palestinian Aramaic is a relatively well documented language thanks to the Jerusalem Talmud, one Dead Sea scroll, and the Scroll of Fasting (מגילת תענית; Megillat Taanit). It is noteworthy that many Palestinians, like Aramaeans, accepted progressively the Jewish religion and, later, different variants of Early Christianity. Palestinian Syriac (also known as Christian Palestinian Aramaic) is the latest stage of that language, and it is also very well documented.

The first page of Megillat Taanit

Prior to their Aramaization, the Palestinians, then known as ‘Philistines’, did not have a writing system of their own, but several Philistine inscriptions have been unearthed recently (noticeably by Israeli archaeologists, not Palestinians). Written in the Phoenician alphabet and language, they offer scholars the chance to explore Philistine names, cognomens and toponyms, and to debate possible linguistic affiliations. The Ekron royal dedicatory Inscription is perhaps the longest text hitherto excavated (Ekron/ עֶקְרוֹן/ Ακκαρων was one the five Philistine cities). For its major part, the History of the Ancient Philistines is reconstituted on the basis of foreign historiography (involving Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Biblical Hebrew, and Ancient Greek sources) and archaeological record for the period 1200-500 BCE. 

A major moment of the Ancient Philistine History has to do with their achievement to capture and abduct the Ark of the Covenant (First Book of Kings, 5:1-6:21); the narrative does not include any mention of Samuel, but describes the adversities and the calamities caused to the Philistines due to the mere presence of the miraculous Ark in their lands.

Point 3: The Sea Peoples and the Peleset-Pelasgian-Cretan Ancestry of the Palestinians

The earliest stage of Palestinian-Philistine History is related to the Peleset, who are extensively documented in Egyptian hieroglyphic texts; there is an agreement among almost all specialists that ‘Peleset’ is the Egyptian name of that nation. As the Peleset-Philistines were the most belligerent element of the Sea Peoples, we know that before 3200 years, the ancestors of the Palestinians, who were then dwelling in the island of Crete and the South Balkans, participated along with many other rebel ethnic groups in the invasions of the ‘Sea Peoples’; this term was first used in the Ancient Egyptian historical texts.

The attacks and the expanding disorder and chaos brought down the Achaeans (Mycenaeans) in the South Balkans, the Hittites in Anatolia, the Amurru in today’s Syria, Ugarit, Byblos and several other Canaanite kingdoms, before being stopped by Ramses III, who defeated the warriors and dispersed them. Following their defeat, the Peleset settled in the southern coast of Canaan, which became later known as Philistia/Palestine.

Representation of the Battle of Djahy on the walls of the Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramses III

In the other end of the spectrum, the Peleset can be identified with the Pelasgians, the indigenous populations of South Balkans that the Achaeans found when they invaded the southernmost confines of the Balkans and set up their tiny kingdoms; the Pelasgians, who were the Achaeans’ worst enemies, are occasionally described in later historiography and Ancient Greek texts of the first millennium BCE. However, no information about them is found in the Achaean/Mycenaean texts (Linear B) of the 2nd millennium BCE, which makes of the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts (and notably the Annals of Ramses III) the earliest historical source about the Palestinians.

Point 4: Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Zionists: Criminal Accomplices in the Formation of a Deracinated Nation that functions as Expendable Material

I deliberately expanded much about the Palestinian History. This is a critical point as it consists in a consequence of the diffusion of Pan-Arabism and Islamism among the Palestinians: almost nothing of the above briefly mentioned stages of their historical past is known to the average Palestinians. Education manuals in the Palestinian National Authority and in the state of Israel contain almost no notion of Ancient History of Palestine and no reference to their origin from Crete and the South Balkans. Everything is done in a way so that the Palestinians are deprived of their past, know therefore nothing about it, and consequently feel as -and believe that they are- deracinated, without a rich archaeological and historical heritage.

Void of historical past and deprived of national heritage, Palestinians fall therefore victims of numerous pseudo-Muslim sheikhs who define the war as the basic task of their followers; this is utterly anti-Islamic and evil. The worst part of the lie is the theory that brutal acts, attacks, killings and atrocities are the best means of resistance and the shortest path to freedom, liberation and independence. This absurd delusion brought the Palestinian nation to its knees; even more disastrously, it exposed them to unnecessary sacrifice and pointless martyrdom, because the fake state of Israel was only consolidated in this manner.

Ignorance, fake education, national destitution, and compact idiocy are never conditions able to be beneficial to an oppressed and persecuted nation. Even worse, the travails of a subjugated and massacred nation are not a religious affair per se; it is a national affair instead. And when inanity and irrationality prevent an entire nation from assessing the tricks and identifying the lies of their enemy, we can conclude that the liberation struggle is sabotaged by the false leaders, who contribute to the historical deracination, educational degeneration, and intellectual disintegration of their own nation.

I can offer distressing examples in this regard; it is an undeniable fact that Israeli scholars and researchers know the historical past of Palestine -in its geographical entirety- incomparably better than the few Palestinian historians and archaeologists. For the Palestinians, this fact constitutes a defeat far worse than the (unquestionably illegal) occupation of their country. Identity and integrity are above all; guns and killings are for losers.

To make a contrast, I can evoke the case of the Oromo and the Somali nations; they constitute the two major nations in the Horn of Africa region. Both nations have been long oppressed and persecuted by the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians. Occupied Oromia and the entire Oromo nation (more than 45 million Cushites of Eastern Africa) are in resistance against the colonial state of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia); Occupied Ogaden is an integral part of the Somali nation that has been repeatedly massacred in the most appalling manner by the (always friendly to the Zionist regime) governments of Addis Ababa (the historic, true name of the Oromian city is Finfinnee). But both nations, the Oromos and the Somalis, know, learn and study their past, historical heritage, cultural integrity, and national identity far better than their enemies do.

Palestinians failed even to detect why the Israeli occupation forces introduced the fallacious term ‘Israeli Arabs’ for the Palestinians who live within the borders of 1967 Israel. This is outrageous; by perniciously ‘Arabizing’ the Palestinians, the Israelis have carried out an effective De-Palestinization process, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and spiritual genocide. All the same, the lethargic and idiotic leaders of the Palestinians have not understood what this meant. Finally, thanks to their Palestinian Islamist accomplices, Israel’s Zionist authorities may one day rename the ‘Israeli Arabs’ as ‘Israeli Muslims’.

Point 5: Lack of Self-criticism brings Disaster, Death and Damnation

The aforementioned points lead us to a conclusive understanding of what the Palestinians truly missed ever since the Zionist project started being unfolded in their own land, already during the last two decades of the Ottoman Empire; they failed to resort to self-criticism, analyze their strengths, identify their weaknesses, study their enemy in-depth, examine the veracity of their friends, and find out the efficient and effective way to oppose the dreadful enemy.

It would be very wrong to accuse Palestinians for extremism and radicalization; this did not concern any Palestinian party, association or group prior to 1960. All the same, for many decades, the Palestinian reaction to the Zionist project was idle, if not friendly. Hassan Bey Shukri (1876-1940) was the first of a long list of Palestinians, who supported both the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist immigration project. He was appointed by the Ottoman administration as mayor of Haifa in 1914, but he committed an act of high treason against his own country, namely the Ottoman Empire.

Hassan Bey Shukri

The problem is not the act of a person like this, but the reasons behind the act. This is what the Palestinians failed to analyze. However, behind this type of treacherous behavior there is a very troublesome reason: the diffusion of the ideology of Pan-Arabism and the associated propaganda that English and French agents, diplomats and explorers carried out in their colonies and worldwide. Unfortunately, until now the Palestinians did not reach this conclusion, because they never imposed the task of self-criticism on them.

Then, after decades of idleness during which the Palestinians seemed to have come to terms with the Zionist agenda, they suddenly shifted to radicalization. Sadly, moving from one extreme to the opposite extreme, while remaining ignorant of one’s own past and heritage, can hardly help, particularly when opposing powerful enemies. What was happening in Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s heralded the cataclysmic developments of the 1940s; one could have expected this evolution, but the Palestinians did not. They thought that their fight against a merciless enemy with a long-term agenda far wider than just the territory of Palestine could possibly be successful when delivered on the spur of the moment. This is sheer paranoia; nations die and disappear in this manner.

On the contrary, self-criticism which is an imperative task for all Christian and Muslim Palestinians would help them realize that only deep rooted perspectives can oppose long term projects and agendas. Consequently, Palestinians should have rejected the disastrous help and the calamitous advice offered by the bogus-kings of the 1940s and the ludicrous presidents of the 1950s and the 1960s, who were merely the puppets of the English and the French. Being the main concerned entity, all the Palestinians should have realized that all these wars benefitted the Zionists, and not themselves and their hypothetical but fake allies. Finally, they were abandoned by almost all the governments of the Arabic-speaking countries.

There are still ignorant people, who insist that in June 1948 the invading Syrian, Trans-Jordanian, Iraqi, and Egyptian forces advanced considerably and they were close to victory; they say that it was a matter of ‘bad luck’ that they failed to bend the resistance of the Zionists and occupy the entire territory of Palestine. These fools forget that, among the invading forces’ military leaders, there was the notorious English lieutenant-general John Bagot Glubb (known as Glubb Pasha and Abu Humaik among the Jordanians and the Palestinians who were subservient and docile to their English masters). He was the commanding general of Transjordan’s Arab Legion from 1939 until 1956, and during the war, he would never allow Palestinian plans and wishes to be materialized.

These fools fail to understand the force that they intend to oppose; actually, if this hypothetical development (namely a Palestinian victory in July 1948) took place, one can be sure that the US army would immediately dispatch the necessary forces to invade Palestine and at the same time evacuate all the Palestinians from there. By speaking so blatantly, I don’t mean that the Zionist forces are invincible and that the Zionist project will be entirely implemented; I am convinced it will not. But the true obstacle to the evil forces can never be the result of ignorance, thoughtlessness and short-term sentimental reaction.

Point 6: the Interminable Failures of the Palestinians 

With this point, I will complete the present brief article. Expanding on the failures experienced by the Palestinians and more importantly by their leadership, one can produce an encyclopedia, but I will only offer few examples to demonstrate how different things would have been, had the successive Palestinian leaderships based their efforts and struggles primarily on knowledge, self-criticism, exploration of their past, investigation of the historical heritage of neighboring nations, accurate study of their enemy (or enemies), and independent action without concertation with fake states, political stooges, and colonial masters.

i- First of all, Palestinians failed to early assess the mistreatment of the indigenous Sephardic Jews by the newly arrived Ashkenazi Khazarians in early 20th c. Ottoman Palestine; as it is well-known, the Ottoman Empire invited the Sephardic Jews in 1492, after the end of the Granada war and the dissolution of the local caliphate. More specifically, Bayezid II sent Kemal Reis to save the Jews of Granada and he granted them permission to settle wherever they liked. Many made Palestine their home, and lived peacefully there for 400 years. However, as soon as the first fake-Jewish Ashkenazi Khazarians started arriving and establishing their Anti-Jewish kibbutzim, the Sephardic Jews rejected and denounced them as fake. There were many fights in the process. Quite unfortunately, both the Ottoman authorities and the Palestinian elders proved to be mentally defective and unable to assess correctly the threat and react accordingly. But a joint Jewish-Christian-Muslim Palestinian rebellion against the stupid and useless sultan in 1905 could really jeopardize the entire Zionist project.

Ashkenazim settlers organizing the first kibbutzim, Palestine – 1913

ii- Long before the collapse of the ill-fated Ottoman rule, Palestinians failed to identify their true allies, namely the Christian Aramaeans of Syria, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia, and set up an alliance with them. The Christian Aramaeans of the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran had been targeted by the Catholic and Protestant missionaries for more than 300-350 years; because of the Western infiltration both, the Monophysites/Miaphysites (or Jacobites) and the Nestorians, were divided, cheated with English and French promises of independence, and slaughtered. A Muslim-Christian Aramaean-Palestinian alliance would strengthen them all against both, the worthless Ottomans and the insidious Westerners.

iii- After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians failed to realize that the Arabic-speaking Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of Hejaz, who collaborated with the English and the French, would never become ‘equal partners’ with their colonial masters and that, by becoming stooges of the Western powers, they were predestined to doom in this world and to face eternal damnation in the Hereafter. Consequently, Palestinians should have comprehended that the neo-colonial nature of all the Arabic-speaking states and the absence of nation building process in them prevented them from becoming trustworthy and valuable allies against the Zionists. Even after the 1948 Nakba (‘disaster’; النكبة), Palestinians should have realized that the reactions of the neighboring states against Israel failed, because those states were all fake.

iv- A long-term national project of education for Palestinians should have involved the dispatch of at least 1000 young Palestinians to Turkey, USSR, Germany and Italy in the 1930s. With the help of national stipends, they would study Ancient History, Languages and Religions of the Orient, History of the Western Colonialism, History of Christianity and Christological Disputes, and History of Western Europe. These students would then be able to unveil the evil face of the Western World to their compatriots in Palestine, extensively updating them about the true nature of the Jesuits, the Freemasons and the Zionists. However, Palestinians failed to understand the importance of Humanities and to envision a long-term effort. All radicals are stupid and ignorant engineers, who think they know History and have true faith!

v- Following the aforementioned oversights, omissions and failures, it was only normal for Diaspora Palestinians to imagine that they could move to Western Europe and North America, study and settle there. This proved to be an even worse debacle for the Palestinians because they failed to identify France, England and America as the reason of all of their problems; they did not perceive the viciousness of the lies said to them, and they believed them as true. This is how Palestinians and many other ignorant Muslims were radicalized only to serve the Freemasonic interests of England and the English secret services, which created many Islamist organizations and machinated the establishment of Islamist parties and states in order to launch a proxy war against the Zionists and their structure, the fake state of Israel.

vi- Depending totally on the deceitful English and French promises, advice and propaganda, the Palestinians were enslaved by thought; and even worse, being disastrously infiltrated by the secret services of the colonial powers (for which scores of Palestinians have been working), they never acted independently for their own interests – without taking into consideration the filthy words of every Faisal, Nasser, Gadhafi, and others. Otherwise, they could have planned and undertaken a long perspective project, namely to obtain power in Jordan and Saudi Arabia by means of a secretively carried out coup. But to undertake such an exploit, one must first ensure national impermeability and then drastically block every effort of infiltration.

The dire conclusion is that, innocent or guilty, faithful or disbelievers, moral or immoral, the average Israelis and Palestinians are being killed for the Anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian and Anti-Islamic interests of the Zionists, the Freemasons, and the Jesuits. These interests I will expose in a forthcoming article.

————————————————–

Download the article (text only) in PDF:

Download the article (pictures & legends) in PDF:

Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Akhenaten, Ramesses III & Moses’ Double Stratagem against the Sea Peoples

Serabit al Khadim, the Exodus, the Red Sea Crossing, and why Mount Sinai’s True Location was confused in Late Antiquity

Хатшепсут, Тутмос III, Эхнатон, Рамсес III и двойная стратегия Моисея против народов моря

Серабит-эль-Хадим, Исход, Разделение Красного моря, и почему истинное местоположение горы Синай было запутано в поздней античности

Serabit al Khadim, Temple of Hathor

Contents

Introduction

I. Mount Sinai (or Horeb): from the Pentateuch to Itinerarium Egeriae

II. The Exodus: Reconstruction of the Path and Textual Changes (?) from the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text

III. From Hatshepsut and Thutmose III to Akhenaten’s Monotheism, and from Merneptah (the Pharaoh of the Exodus) to Ramesses III

IV. Serabit al Khadim and the Temple of Hathor: a Major Egyptian Site

V. Straits of Tiran: Red Sea Crossing, World Politics, and Moses’ Formidable Double Stratagem

VI. Iranians, Macedonians, Aramaeans, Romans: Reasons for the Confusion about the True Location of Mount Sinai

VII. From Ptolemy’s Geography to Al Biruni’s Chronology

Содержание

Введение

I. Гора Синай (или Хорив): от Пятикнижия к Паломничеству Этерии

II. Исход: реконструкция пути и текстовые изменения (?) от Септуагинты к масоретскому тексту

III. От Хатшепсут и Тутмоса III до монотеизма Эхнатона и от Мернептаха (фараона Исхода) до Рамсеса III.

IV. Серабит-эль-Хадим и храм Хатхор: главное место Египта

V. Тиранский пролив: Разделение Красного моря, мировая политика и грозная двойная стратегия Моисея

VI. Иранцы, македонцы, арамейцы, римляне: Причины путаницы относительно истинного местоположения горы Синай

VII. От географии Птолемея к хронологии Аль Бируни

Biaw: part of Lower Egypt’s 14th ‘nome’ (administrative division)

Introduction

Mount Sinai and the Sinai Peninsula are not located where you think they are. Consequently and more importantly, the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptians monotheists, who left with them, did not cross the Red Sea near the modern cities of Suez or Ismailia (Timsah Lake).

Certainly, I am not the first to state this fact. There have been several other explorers and researchers who first discussed the topic, examined closely all the related aspects, and even undertook expeditions to find out eventual remains of the true Mount Sinai, which is not located in the peninsula, which by mistake bears its name.

If I intend to herewith present a brief commentary on the topic, this is entirely due to my desire to underscore two points that ought to have been noticed long ago. I have to admit that the sojourn of the Ancient Hebrews in Egypt (Kemet/Mizraim) and their Exodus generated tons of publications and endless polarizations, particularly because the topics are a matter of common heritage and at times divergent traditions for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Different textual sources, distinct interpretations, and overreliance on later and apparently distorted traditions contributed to the slow formation of stereotypes that have been repeated for long.

The end result involved unfortunately the typical Western academic conventionalism and conformism, the demonization of pioneering explorers, and the vilification of any scholar who would question the supposedly sacrosanct conclusions of the modern academic disciplines. Even more confusingly, Western European painters and artists worsened the problem by producing terribly misleading representations of the Biblical stories onto which they merely projected their own illusions, delusions and unsubstantiated understanding of the historical past.

I. Mount Sinai (or Horeb): from the Pentateuch to Itinerarium Egeriae

Four (out of the five) books of the Torah detail the event that Reform Judaism (so: fake Judaism) calls ‘the founding myth’ of the Ancient Hebrews: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, in spite of the numerous details, there is no topographical-geographical accuracy in these narratives that may have been written in an early form in the 11th-10th c. BCE, but the earliest composition of the presently preserved text is impossible to be dated before the late 6th and early 5th c. BCE. This fact, in and by itself, dramatically conditions the chances of the Biblical text to offer a shred of authoritative evidence, particularly if we take into consideration the great changes that had occurred in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan, which are the main regions involved in the text. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehud_Medinata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Modern Jewish and Christian commentators, failing to comprehend the span of time between the events described and the dates of the earliest composition and the ultimate compilation of the Biblical text, focused excessively on the 42 stations of the Exodus that are mentioned in Numbers 33, trying to eventually locate the stations of the Ancient Hebrews; this ended up in enormous confusion, because these locations are either broadly defined or described in relative terms.

One of these stations is Midbar Sin, i.e. the Wilderness of Sin; this expression is attested in Exodus 16:1 and 17:1, and in Numbers 33:11–12. I have to add that Sin is a toponym in this case. This is the earliest form of reference to the wider region where Mount Sinai is located. There is also reference to the Sinai Wilderness, which is found in Exodus 19:1–2 and in Number 10:12 and 33:15–16. But the identification of the sacred mountain with what is called Jabal Musa (Moses’ Mountains) in modern times is fully unsubstantiated and absolutely arbitrary.

Actually, German theologians of the school of Julius Wellhausen, after extensive examination of the four different historical sources of the Old Testament, noticed that the name ‘Sinai’ occurs only in two of them (i.e. the Jahwist and the Priestly sources); contrarily, in the other two sources (namely the Elohist and the Deuteronomist), the same always mountain is named ‘Horeb’. The etymology and the meaning of the name ‘Sinai’ are still a matter of debate, but the most commonly accepted opinion involves an association with Sin, the Assyrian-Babylonian aspect of the divine world that was symbolized with the Moon. In Neo-Assyrian times (1244-609 BCE), within the context of Sargonid monotheism, Sin became a symbol for the Assyrians, who explicitly considered themselves as the ‘Chosen People’ of the Only God, Assur. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Exodus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_of_Sin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zin_Desert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_(Bible)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai#Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_(Bible)#Jabal_Musa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Red_Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_parallels_of_the_Exodus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_Book_of_Exodus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_fire_and_cloud

Ancient Egyptian narratives, which antedate and may have served as point of reference for the Biblical text (notably the description of calamities such as “the river is blood”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

The two appellations (Hebrew: Har Sinay; Aramaic: Tura deSinay) are at the origin of the Quranic expressions Tur Saina, Tur Sinin, at-Tur and al-Jabal (just: ‘mountain’). However, the identification of the location is not a matter of the Quran, but of purely subjective and unsubstantiated opinions of Muslims who made the same mistake as the Christians of the times of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I, who ordered the construction (548-565) of what is today the oldest continuously occupied Christian monastery (دير القدّيسة كاترين; Μονὴ τῆς Ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης). Although the existence of monastic life in this region, as documented in the Itinerarium Egeriae (written ca. 385 CE), proves that the location was identified as the Mount Sinai at the time, nothing exists to demonstrate significant antecedence and historical continuity for this identification. No less than 1500 years separate the Exodus and the Christian nun Egeria, who traveled in the Orient and wrote down her itinerary. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine%27s_Monastery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_(Bible)#Suggested_locations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Serbal

It is on such wrong maps of Egypt that the wrong reconstruction of the path of the departing Egyptian monotheists and Ancient Hebrews has been based. This map is entirely wrong, because it does not show a) the Egyptian oases, b) the Red Sea harbors of Ancient Egypt, c) North Sudan down to at least the fourth cataract of the Nile {which was an area in which the Ancient Egyptians at times were the sole rulers and at times interacted with the local Cushitic (Ancient Sudanese) kingdoms}, d) at least the western half of the so-called Sinai Peninsula (which was integral part of Egypt), e) the southern half of Canaan (which was either annexed to Egypt or ruled by vassal kings or princes), and f) large swathes of today’s Libyan territory where the Ancient Egyptians interacted with the local Berber princes, who often had significant positions and career in Kemet (Ancient Egypt).

Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus

Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus

Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus

Typical Freemasonic Protestant Anglo-Zionist absurdity and paranoia: they ‘think’ that the ‘departure’ (Exodus) started in the Valley of the Nile! Read the original legend of the forged map to laugh at will: «Jericho. Israel leave Elim (Exo.16:1) Tabernacle erected (Exo.40:17) Israel arrive at Sinai (Exo.19:1) Israel leave Sinai (Num.10:11) 1yr 2mth 15dy. 1yr 3mth 15dy. 2yr 1mth 1dy. 2yr 2mth 20dy. Punon. Moses ascends mount Sinai 7 times. Israel leave Egypt (Num.33:3) Israel spent 9 months constructing the Tabernacle. Spies enter the land – Kadesh (Num.13:20) 1yr 1mth 1dy. 1yr 1mth 14dy. 1yr 1mth 15dy. 2yr 1mth 14dy. 2yr 4mth. Passover (Exo.12:6) Passover (Num.9:1-3) Ritual Calendar established (Exo.12:2)»

A far more reasonable and more plausible itinerary based on common sense and closer study of all the related historical sources – not only the Biblical text.

II. The Exodus: Reconstruction of the Path and Textual Changes (?) from the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text

The reconstitution of the trajectory that the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptian monotheists pursued after leaving Egypt produced an incredible number of books and articles, which are mostly delusional in their major assumptions, although they may contain countless pieces of historical truth. Modern scholarship refuted most of the efforts of reconstruction in the light of enormous mistakes that happen to be found in the Biblical text. Even the name that the Biblical author uses to denote the land where the Ancient Hebrews were settled in Egypt is otherwise unknown and meaningless in Hebrew (Goshen); several Egyptologists tried to offer potential interpretations, based on Ancient Egyptian toponyms and vocabulary.

The duration of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt is also questionable. Consequently, even the date of the Exodus is debatable. In the past, scholars and religious propagandists preferred to date the event in the middle of the 15th c., which is highly improbable. After the documentation made available due to Orientalist research during the 19th and the early 20th c., a ‘lower’ date (middle to end of the 13th c.) seemed to be more plausible. In fact, anyone who attempts to write about the topic today without having first studied extensively original Ancient Egyptian sources relating to the rise and fall of the Egyptian monotheism (Atenism) at the time of the 18th dynasty is doomed to draw the wrong conclusions. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Goshen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob#In_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)#Family_reunited

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exodus_date.html

The various efforts of reconstruction of the path followed by all those who followed Moses in Yezi’at Mizrayim (יציאת מצרים/departure from Egypt) can be basically categorized into five main groups of modern scholars, namely those who support one of the following alternatives:

i- the Mediterranean Sea road;

ii- the northeastern confines of the Delta, north of the Bitter Lakes region;

iii- the eastern confines of the Delta, through the Bitter Lakes region;

iv- the northern end of the Gulf of Suez; and

v- the crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Within each group there may be variants or sub-groups; for instance, in the fifth category, Ron Wyatt places the crossing in the area of Nuweiba, whereas Robert Cornuke proposed the idea of a land bridge at the Strait of Tiran.

The categorization encompasses another scholarly debate, namely the interpretation of the Ancient Hebrew term ‘Yam Suph’ (יַם-סוּף), which literally means ‘sea of the reeds’; these are the Ancient Hebrew words used in the Bible for the sea that Moses and his followers crossed during the Exodus. Now, the very serious problem is that the Septuagint version offers a rather bizarre translation of the term, rendering it in Alexandrian Koine as ‘Red Sea’ (Ερυθρά Θάλασσα). This inexplicable situation impacted the judgment of many researchers greatly, because some scholars took the Masoretic text as guide in their effort to reconstitute the Exodus route, whereas others accepted the Septuagint translation. In fact, the most original sources (Septuagint, Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch) stick to the term ‘Red Sea’. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizraim

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/מצרים

At this point, I must clarify that during the Antiquity, the term ‘Red Sea’ did not have the connotation that it has in modern times; this geographical term denoted the following bodies of water (as used with their meaning in modern languages):

a) the Red Sea,

b) the Persian Gulf, and

c) the Indian Ocean from the Eastern African coast lands to Indochina and Indonesia.

Within the limits of the present article, I cannot expand on the topic, but I have to underscore that the historical name was tantamount to a general description of what we would call today ‘the southern seas’.

All the same, only religious dogmatism, academic doctrinairism, ideological authoritarianism, and intellectual opinionatedness can lead so many scholars, explorers and religious schemers to such extreme disregard of few Biblical verses, which undeniably clarify the whole matter to some extent, totally canceling some of the above mentioned five options.  

III. From Hatshepsut and Thutmose III to Akhenaten’s Monotheism, and from Merneptah (the Pharaoh of the Exodus) to Ramesses III

The verses 17 and 18 of the 13th chapter of Exodus help us recreate the Exodus route as pursued according to God’s will and following a miraculous intervention; the text reads:

“And when Pharaoh had sent out the people, the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, which is near; thinking lest perhaps they would repent, if they should see wars arise against them, and would return into Egypt. But he led them about by the way of the desert, which is by the Red Sea: and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.” (English translation of the Vulgata)

(Septuagint: Ὡς δὲ ἐξαπέστειλε Φαραὼ τὸν λαόν, οὐχ ὡδήγησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς ὁδὸν γῆς Φυλιστιείμ, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν· εἶπε γὰρ ὁ Θεός· μήποτε μεταμελήσῃ τῷ λαῷ ἰδόντι πόλεμον, καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ εἰς Αἴγυπτον. καὶ ἐκύκλωσεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν ὁδὸν τὴν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, εἰς τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, πέμπτῃ δὲ γενεᾷ ἀνέβησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου.)

(Vulgata: igitur cum emisisset Pharao populum non eos duxit Dominus per viam terrae Philisthim quae vicina est reputans ne forte paeniteret eum si vidisset adversum se bella consurgere et reverteretur in Aegyptum. Sed circumduxit per viam deserti, quæ est juxta mare Rubrum: et armati ascenderunt filii Israël de terra Ægypti.)

(Masoretic text: וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הָעָם, וְלֹא-נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא: כִּי אָמַר  אֱלֹהִים, פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה–וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה . וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם)

(English translation of the Masoretic text: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said: ‘Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.’ But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.)

(English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.) About:

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0213.htm#1

http://www.imgap.gr/file1/AG-Pateres/AG%20KeimenoMetafrasi/PD/02.%20Exodus.htm

https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=SPE

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=SPE|reference=Exo.13

https://vulgate.org/ot/exodus_13.htm

https://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/exo013.htm#017

This text automatically cancels any modern reconstruction effort that involves the Mediterranean route (‘the land of the Philistines’); more characteristically, the text underscores the topographical fact that the said option would be, truly speaking, a real shortcut. Even more importantly, in the text, God explains the reason for which by miraculous intervention the Ancient Hebrews were diverted from the said route. Departing from Egypt, they would have been exposed to various wars, which may eventually have convinced them to return to Egypt. This is quite telling! However, to duly grasp the meaning of the verse, one must have a markedly Egyptological reading of the Exodus narrative.

Every pertinent historico-religious research about the rise of monotheism in Egypt and among the early Hebrews starts with the very slow ascent of the solar cult and spirituality (Atenism) during the 18th dynasty and, more specifically, during the reigns of (Amenhotep IV’s) Akhenaten’s four predecessors, namely Amenhotep III (1388-1351 BCE), Thutmose IV (1397-1388 BCE), Amenhotep II (1427-1397 BCE), and Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE). All the scholars and explorers, who focus particularly on the dramatic events of the reigns of Akhenaten (1351-1334 BCE) and of his three successors, i.e. Smenkhkare (1335-1334 BCE), Neferneferuaten (1334-1332 BCE) and Tutankhaten-Tutankhamen (1332-1323 BCE) until the final restoration of the Amun polytheism (in the third year of Tutankhaten’s reign), forget that the deep rejection of the Amun blasphemy, which characterized almost all the monarchs of the 18th dynasty may in fact have started with the frontal opposition between Hatshepsut (1479-1458 BCE) and her nephew and stepson Thutmose III.

Wife of Thutmose II (1493-1479 BCE), Hatshepsut not only prevented her nephew from ruling, but added insult to injury, as in her vicious attempt to justify her rule, she presented herself as product of Theogamy, sacrilegiously pretending that the scandalous abomination of Amun had sexual intercourse with her mother. So absurd and paranoid her monstrous attempt was that in reality she stripped herself of her royal ancestry (she was the daughter of Thutmose I; 1503-1493). Thutmose III had however to live for 20 years in a secluded part of the temple of Amun of Karnak, protected by the monotheist sacerdotal college, which nominally accepted Amun Trinity only to gain time in their effort to overthrow or physically exterminate the blasphemous queen. That is why when his aunt was eliminated, Thutmose III, who proved to be Ancient Egypt’s greatest conqueror and one of the very few pharaohs to have ever marched up to the bank of Euphrates, ordered the deletion of Hatshepsut’s impious name from every inscription and relief.

The above brief description means that, before 1349 BCE (second year of Akhenaten’s reign when -during the Sed festival- Atenism was officially proclaimed), a real religious war was already going on in Egypt for no less than 130 years (after the death of Thutmose II). The outstanding Atenist monotheist upheaval and Egypt’s transformation consisted in an unprecedented renewal that eclipses by far the Christianization of the Roman Empire and the Islamization of Arabia in terms of spiritual magnificence, solemnity, majesty, piety, simplicity, divine epiphany, and royal forcefulness.

The three shocking decades (from Akhenaten’s rise to the throne to Tutankhamen’s funerals) that Egypt lived in the middle of the 14th c. BCE have no equivalent in World History, because they involve the rise and the fall of one of the purest forms of monotheistic religion ever accepted as state dogma. The white terror, which was launched against all monotheists during the reigns of the rancorous priest Ay (1323-1319 BCE) and of the cruel soldier Horemheb (1319-1292 BCE), continued during the reigns of the first four pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, namely Ramesses I (1292-1290 BCE), Seti I (1290-1279 BCE), Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) and Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE). This is exactly the atmosphere of oppression and persecution that the Biblical text intended to highlight and reflect. Ramesses II must have most probably been the pharaoh whom Moses encountered.

This means that, at the moment of the encounter (around the very last years of the old pharaoh), the religious polarization and clash between the monotheists and the polytheists in Egypt had already lasted for about 260 years (1479-1219 BCE), whereas the severe persecution of the Egyptian (and other) monotheists was the ordinary condition of daily life for no less than a century (1329-1219 BCE). Merneptah is the true pharaoh of the Exodus; however, he had even more serious troubles to face than the rebellious monotheists, who apparently could not anymore live in Egypt. During his reign, Egypt had to oppose the alliance between the Berbers (‘Libyans’) and the Sea Peoples, because the first, rather smaller, attacks of those barbarians had started.

This event is good enough to explain why the aforementioned Biblical excerpt clearly states that God did not want to allow the departing Ancient Hebrews to go “by the way of the land of the Philistines”: the Philistines of the Biblical text are none other than the Peleset of the Ancient Egyptian texts, who were one of the rebellious Sea Peoples and participated in the attacks against Egypt that Ramesses III (1186-1155 BCE) was able at last to vanquish and disperse. The Peleset-Philistines are identified as the Pelasgians who lived in South Balkans and were the ferocious enemies of the Achaeans and the Hittites. So, when the first waves of the disorderly and barbarian Peleset-Philistines-Pelasgians were arriving in the southern coastland of Canaan (where they settled, therefore becoming the ancestors of today’s Palestinians), the Biblical God did not obviously want his chosen people to intermingle with them.

Better comprehended after the study of a geographical map, this explicit statement does not only cancel the first of the above mentioned five options, but it totally wipes out the first four options because, in spite of existing variants, the supporters of these suggestions reconstruct eventual routes that -all- pass relatively close from the South Canaan coast lands where the Peleset-Philistines-Pelasgians had started settling. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of the fifth option. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Atenism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sed_festival

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_Era

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_Period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaohs_in_the_Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/exodus-from-egypt/2264-mount-sinai-is-not-jebel-allawz-in-saudi-arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Hatshepsut: the evil polytheist who invented the concept of ‘Theogamy’ in order to justify the usurpation of throne and her immoral and illegal rule

Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir al Bahari, Luxor West

Making offerings to Amun: Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari

Offerings made to Amun

Amun and Ahmose sitting opposite each other in heaven, which is symbolized by two female divinities supporting them; Amun holds the Ankh to Ahmose’s nose and mouth so that she can breathe in the divine essence and conceive the god’s child.

Deir el Bahari textual evidence for the Theogamy:

– the inscription claims that Amun ‘prophesized the birth of Hatshepsut at a council of the gods;

– Amun disguised as Thutmose I and visited Queen Ahmose; the inscription reads (paragraph 196):

“Utterance of Amun-Re, lord of Thebes, presider over Karnak: He made his form like the majesty of this husband, the King Aa Kheper Ka Ra (Thutmose I’s throne name). He found her as she slept in the beauty of her palace. She waked at the fragrance of the god, which she smelled in the presence of his Majesty. He went to her immediately, coivit cum ea (lit. ‘had sex with her’), he imposed his desire upon her, he caused that she should see him in his form of a god. When he came before her, she rejoiced at the sight of his beauty, his love passed into her limbs, which the fragrance of the god flooded; all his odors were from Punt”;

– the queen is then informed by Amun that she has conceived a daughter by him; the inscription reads (paragraph 198):

“Utterance of Amun, Lord of the Two Lands, before her: “Khnemet-Amun-Hatshepsut (her full birth name: ‘United with Amun, the Foremost of Ladies’) shall be the name of this my daughter, whom I have placed in thy body, this saying which comes out of thy mouth. She shall exercise the excellent kingship in this whole land. My soul is hers, my bounty is hers, my crown is hers, that she may rule the Two Lands, that she may lead all the living … “;

– Amun instructs the god Khnum, who was thought to be the creator of flesh, to make the baby and its Ka on his potter’s wheel. The reliefs show Khnum being helped by his consort divinity, the frog-headed Hekt;

– the royal baby and its Ka are depicted in the likeness of a boy, complete with male genitalia;

– the instruction text reads (paragraph 200):

“Utterance of Amun, presider over Karnak: “Go, to make her, together with her Ka, from these limbs which are in me; go, to fashion her better than all gods; shape for me, this my daughter, whom I have begotten. I have given to her all life and satisfaction, all stability, all joy of heart from me, all offerings, and all bread, like Re, forever”;

– Queen Ahmose was led off by Khnum and Hekt to give birth; she was attended by Bes and Taweret (the hippopotamus-like divinity that protected childbirth);

– the newborn child was given the symbols of life, power and protection, before being presented to her ‘father’ Amun;

Complete English translation of the reliefs: https://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/w%20civ%2002/birthofhat.html

All five Pharaonic names of Thutmose I and Hatshepsut:

https://pharaoh.se/pharaoh/Thutmose-I

https://pharaoh.se/pharaoh/Hatshepsut

Thutmose III depicted on the 7th pylon of the Amun temple at Karnak, smiting enemies

Thutmose III holding a hedj Club and a sekhem scepter, while standing before two obelisks

Thutmose III wearing the atef crown

The ‘tekhen waty’ (unique obelisk) of Thutmose III was transported to Rome, following a decision made by Emperor Constantine I and materialized by Constantius II in 357 CE. Initially, it stood in Circus Maximus; it then collapsed and it was covered by the mud (in the 5th c.). Finally, it was restored in the 1580s and erected in front of the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran with the addition of a cross atop of it. The acquisition of the obelisks erected by Thutmose III was of particularly notable interest for the religious authorities of Roman and Constantinopolitan Christianity; Theodosius ordered the shipment (390 CE) of another obelisk, which was initially built by Thutmose III, to Constantinople; it was installed in the Hippodrome.

Amenhotep II shown at the Temple of Amada, 180 km south of Aswan, near the Lake Nasser

Thutmose IV wearing the blue crown; grandfather of Akhenaten, he actively supported the rise of the monotheistic solar ideology, therefore receiving many unjust comments and insults by the fanatic priests of Amun – something that his grandson explicitly stated, denounced and regretted.

The famous Dream Stele of Thutmose IV; the pharaoh built the monument after having slept between the paws of the Great Sphinx; the text shows an extraordinary increase in terms of solar cult and spirituality.

Amenhotep III, predecessor and father of Akhenaten

Akhenaten and Nefertiti with their children under the blessings of Aten whose benediction takes the form of solar rays ending in hands that hold Ankh, the symbol of spiritual life and potency

Akhenaten depicted as a sphinx on a relief unearthed in his capital Akhetaton, i.e. the modern Tell el Amarna (or Amarna)

Akhenaten wearing the Egyptian Blue Crown of War

The legendary statue of Akhenaten that triggered endless scholarly discussions about the (radically different from the Classical Ancient Egyptian Art) Amarna Naturalism and the eventuality of particular health problems of the great monotheist pharaoh

Typical boundary stele from Akhetaton / Amarna, the monotheistic capital of Akhenaten in Middle Egypt (not far from Al Minia)

Akhetaton / Amarna, the Temple of Aten

Akhetaton / Amarna, the northern palace

Akhetaton/Amarna, diagram and reconstruction of the royal quarters

Akhetaton/Amarna: general view

The typical practice of the days of Akhenaten: the Amun name was erased from wherever it was written. Stela of Djeserka (full name: Djeserkareseneb / Djeser-ka-re-seneb), a temple doorkeeper at Karnak, Thebes

Design from the wall paintings of the tomb of Meryre II, royal scribe, steward, and overseer of the two treasuries, at Akhetaton/Amarna; in the royal year 12, Akhenaten is depicted as receiving tributes, while sitting on the throne and being blessed by the rays of Aten. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meryre_II and https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubccommunityandpartnerspublicati/52387/items/1.0422133

Akhenaten and Nefertiti make offerings to Aten; from a limestone stela in the Museum of Cairo

The successors of Akhenaten proved to be unable to outmaneuver the Amun polytheist conspiracy against the monotheist state that was based in Akhetaten; relief with an unidentified royal couple that may very well be either Smenkhkare & Meritaten (Akhenaten’s first successor and his wife) or Tutankhamun & Ankhesenamun

Backing of the golden throne of Tutankhamun; the pharaoh and his wife Ankhesenamun are depicted as blessed by the rays of Aten, before the Amun polytheist restoration; at the time, they were respectively named Tutankhaten and Ankhes-enpa-Aten

Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun

Tutankhamun depicted on a chariot, participating in a military campaign

Tutankhamun holding the Pharaonic insignia

From a wall painting of the burial chamber of KV62 (the tomb of Tutankhamun): Tutankhamun and his Ka (standing behind him) embrace Osiris (in the left part of the picture); the deceased pharaoh greets Nut (in the central part); on the right side, the treacherous polytheist priest of Amun Ay performs the ceremony of the Opening of the Mouth for the dead of the eventually assassinated Tutankhamun, who is depicted as Osiris. Ay had first forced Tutankhamun to restore the polytheistic religion of the Theban Trinity and then, after the young pharaoh’s death or assassination, he was proclaimed as pharaoh. About the Theban tombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theban_tombs / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Necropolis / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Necropolis

Ay’s royal names on a faience plate

Ay’s main ally against the monotheist state proclaimed by Akhenaten was Horemheb, an ignorant and fanatic soldier of socially low status; with the support of the polytheist clergy of Amun, he succeeded Ay and he ruled Egypt, launching a White Terror against the monotheists and dividing the country irrevocably. With the divisive and tyrannical rule of Horemheb, we observe in Egypt conditions similar to those described in the Bible, involving oppression, persecution, hatred and ignominy. Here, on the 10th pylon of the temple of Amun in Karnak, he is depicted as making offerings to Amun.

Wepwawet wolf-god of war & death, giving scepters to Seti I; relief from Seti I’s temple at Abedju (Abydos); second pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, Seti I was a particularly cruel pharaoh, who proved to be very heinous against the monotheists.

Ramesses II seems to have been a monotheist ruler who reigned over Kemet in an alliance with part of the then powerful polytheist priesthood. Enormous statue of Ramesses II from the first peristyle court of the Amun temple at Luxor; Ramesses II was the most important ruler of the 19th dynasty and one of the longest reigning monarchs in World History. He undertook an excessive project of constructions that absorbed all of the country’s resources and exhausted the population; this was his method of keeping the people busy, unfree and unable to react to the polytheist regime. He is the first of the two pharaohs related to the Exodus narrative.

Diorite statue of Ramesses II from Thebes, today in the Museo Egizio of Turin

Merenptah offering to Ptah; during his reign, the monotheist Egyptians and the Hebrews left Egypt, crossing the Red Sea

Second ruler of the 20th dynasty, Ramesses III was a staunch monotheist, who did not challenge the religious prevalence of the polytheists; but his reign was filled with exploits that damaged irreversibly the plans of the polytheists to take control over Egypt. In this relief from the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak, Ramesses III makes an offering.

Ramses III offering incense, wall painting from his tomb (KV11) in the Kings Valley, Luxor West

Ramesses III makes an oath to Isis; from the tomb of the Prince Amunher khepeshef

The three victories of Ramesses III against the Sea Peoples was Egypt’s greatest gift to Mankind and foremost contribution to World History. Following these developments, the historical role of Egypt had already been completed. From the pylon of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West): Ramesses III presents his victory over the Sea Peoples to Amun.

Design of the reliefs and the texts of the Northern Wall (outer side) of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu: Ramses III in the Battle of Djahy (one of the battles against the Sea Peoples)

From the Medinet Habu reliefs: severed hands of the defeated Sea Peoples. This was indeed a splendid gift to the civilized world and a most demanded punishment of the incestuous barbarians who intended to plunge the Mankind into lawlessness, non-violence, fornication, sodomy, and polytheism.

IV. Serabit al Khadim and the Temple of Hathor: a Major Egyptian Site

Abu Zanimah is situated at ca. 170 km south of Suez on the western coastland of what we mistakenly call today the ‘Sinai Peninsula’. Reaching this place, one has crossed more than half the distance between Suez and Sharm el Sheikh (290 km), which is the most famous resort in the wider region. Approximately 40 km east of Abu Zanimah is located the major archaeological site in the region, i.e. Serabit al Khadim (سرابيط الخادم/lit. ‘the standing rocks of the servant’).

This appellation concerns the presence of a large number of rock blocks, each of which was called ‘sarbut’, meaning ‘the standing rock’ (‘serabit’ being the plural). The name of the servant, who was associated with them, reflects the statues scattered inside the temple, which represented (or were viewed as) ‘servants’ for the residents of the old. This is how the name came into existence. There are many other important sites and monuments in the wider region, involving fortifications, caves, turquoise mines, smaller temples, and numerous inscriptions.

Serabit al Khadim: the Standing Rocks of the Servant

Hathor capital

Serabit al Khadim as presented in the Ordnance Survey that was undertaken by Sir John Pakington in 1869; about: https://discovered.ed.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=44UOE_INST:44UOE_VU2&tab=Everything&docid=alma996335823502466&lang=en&context=L&query=creator,exact,Feis,%20Herbert,%201893-1972.

Reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions

Drawing made during the famous Prussian Expedition to Egypt in 1842-1845; the academic mission was led by the renowned Karl Richard Lepsius, one of the ‘Fathers of Modern Egyptology’. About: https://en.qantara.de/content/egypt-expedition-1842-a-prussian-tour-to-the-land-of-the-pharaohs

The Hathor temple, a diagram

The existence of the great temple of Hathor at Serabit al Khadim demonstrates that this place was a major center of Ancient Egyptian monotheistic cult. The temple was initially excavated by Sir Flinders Petrie in the very first years of the 20th c. and subsequently explored by different groups of archaeologists and epigraphists. The temple dates back to the Middle Kingdom (early 2nd millennium BCE); Hathor was often symbolized as a cow to reflect the aspect of divine fertility, but basically her name means ‘the House of Horus’. For this reason, her cult was regularly associated with that of Isis, who was believed to be ‘Mother’ to Horus (the Ancient Egyptian concept of Messiah), according to the Iwnw Heliopolitan doctrine of Ennead, i.e. one of the staunchest monotheist faiths in Ancient Egypt. As a matter of fact, the two divine hypostases (Isis and Hathor) were often identified with one another. About:

https://www.mindat.org/loc-228179.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ancient_Egypt_map-hiero.svg

https://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serabit.htm

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/egypt/sinai/attractions/serabit-al-khadim/a/poi-sig/1499861/355260

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serabit_el-Khadim

https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/templesandtombs/8515.html

https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-succoth.htm

The Road to Succoth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjaru

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Habuwa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_the_Ruler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Maghareh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

It makes therefore sense to identify the majestic temple (built at the extraordinary elevation of 850 m above sea level, which is a unique case in Ancient Egypt) and its astounding surroundings as a major center of Egyptian monotheism. Actually, for more than 1500 years before the rise of Atenism, the two main Ancient Egyptian dogmas, namely the Heliopolitan Ennead and the Khemenu Hermupolitan Ogdoad, were definitely monotheistic in the conceptualization and description of the spiritual and the material universes. In opposition to them stood the Ptah Memphitic dogma, Egypt’s central polytheistic faith, and after the beginning of the 16th c. BCE, the Amun Trinity, which was a theological system composed in order to constitute the imperial religion propagated from Thebes of Egypt (Niwt).

The strong presence of Egyptian monotheists in Serabit al Khadim is also confirmed by the construction of a temple of Aten, which may have been still operational after the Amun polytheist restoration in the Valley of the Nile.    

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/x30546

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA14953

There is another crucial confirmation of the monotheistic character of the Ancient Egyptian settlement at Serabit al Khadim, in spite of the undeniable presence of a small temple dedicated to Ptah that was also excavated there; in any case, contrasting priesthoods coexisted almost always in Ancient Egypt, of course in incessant strife against one another. This issue has to do with something that many specialists observed, studied, published, but never explained. The majestic location is also known for the numerous samples of the so-called Proto-Sinaitic script that are found there. This early alphabetic system is documented due to ca. 40 inscriptions or fragments noticed in the surroundings of the Hathor Temple.

Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions

Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions n. 345, 374 and 353

Birth of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet at Wadi el Hol and Serabit al Khadim

Proto-Sinaitic script on the Sphinx found in Serabit al Khadim

This is an early Canaanite script that seems to be at the very origin of the Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek alphabets from one side, and of the Ancient Yemenite (mistakenly called ‘South Arabian’) script from the other side. The samples are dated in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE (mainly in the period 1800-1600 BCE); they corresponded to a Northwest Semitic language from which seem to originate those of the Ancient Canaanites, the Phoenicians, and the Ancient Hebrews. As texts, the inscriptions of Serabit al Khadim are mainly votive, and they were found among hieroglyphic and hieratic inscriptions. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula

Although not abundant, the material record enables us to comprehend what truly was happening in the Hathor Temple. Due to the apparent presence of numerous foreign workers of Northwest Semitic origin, some priestly scribes of the temple decided to introduce a new, relatively easy, writing system among the foreigners. This would closely associate these people with the Hathor priesthood, facilitate the priestly control of them, and finally turn these populations into tools of regional influence; this is so because some of these workers could be dispatched among the tiny Canaanite kingdoms of the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE as agents. In fact, during the 18th dynasty (1600-1300 BCE), we observe exactly this type of relationship between Egypt and the various Canaanite tributary princes whose correspondence with the pharaoh has been made known with the discovery of the Amarna Letters.    

Saying that we attest in the Serabit al Khadim Hathor Temple around 1700 BCE the preparatory work for what we find in the Egyptian colonies in South Canaan 250 years later may be an understatement. During the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt (1783-1540 BCE) and, more particularly, throughout the time of the notorious 15th dynasty (the Hekau Khasut/Hyksos Kings: 1650-1550 BCE), the wider region around may have been an extraterritorial entity totally out of the hands of the evil and blasphemous kings of Avaris, who were named after the Ancient Egyptian name for Satan (Apep/Apophis). About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apepi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apep

At this point, I want to totally reject the unsubstantiated theory of Lina Eckenstein (1857-1931), a pseudo-scientific figure who worked for some time as assistant of the famous English Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie; just impressed by the superb site and backed by her skills as failed astrologer and disqualified soothsayer, she claimed that Serabit al Khadim was the location where Moses obtained the Two Tablets with the Ten Commandments. There is nothing in support of this absurd idea. About: Serabit el Khadim, Hathor, Moses, Mount Sinai and the Exodus

https://whatmakespeopletick.blogspot.com/2016/06/serabit-el-khadim-hathor-moses-mount.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Eckenstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablets_of_Stone

The undeniable fact is however that Biaw (as the Ancient Egyptians named the land that we now mistakenly call ‘Sinai Peninsula’) was administratively considered as an extension of the 14th nome (‘province’) of the Lower Egypt, which was known as the ‘easternmost land’ (‘heneti iabti’; ḫntỉ-ỉꜣbtỉ). This is therefore in evident agreement with the Biblical reference to the land Goshen (where the Ancient Hebrews had settled), which has been identified by many specialists as the northeastern extremities of the Delta. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nome_(Egypt)

So, we can conclude that it is absolutely misplaced to locate the Crossing of the Red Sea in any of the first four among the five aforementioned alternatives, because in each of those cases, the departing Ancient Hebrews would cross a body of water after which the land would still be part of Egypt. There is in fact only one land toward which the Ancient Hebrews would go without having the fear to find there Egyptian soldiers, officers and Pharaonic administrators: outside Egypt. This means that the Exodus must have most probably taken place from Serabit al Khadim to the southernmost confines of what we call today ‘Sinai Peninsula’ around Sharm el Sheikh, namely any location between the promontories Ras Muhammad and Ras Nasrani.

Then, to offer a plausible answer to all those, who stick to the point that the Biblical Masoretic text mentions ‘yam suph’, which means ‘the Sea of Reeds’ (and not the ‘Red Sea’), one can very reasonably dissociate the Exodus event from the Eastern Delta regions and associate it with the Tiran straits, by merely stating that there may have been reeds in the Tiran straits at the time. Nature has changed significantly over the past 3250 years.

About:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ras_Muhammad_National_Park

https://www.tutu.ru/geo/egypt/kurort/ras-nasrani/

https: snorkelaroundtheworld com/2022/08/ras-nasrani-snorkeling/

V. Straits of Tiran: Red Sea Crossing, World Politics, and Moses’ Formidable Double Stratagem

We can therefore conclude that the only plausible itinerary that the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptian monotheists made after crossing the Straits of Tiran involved the following:

a- wandering through the NW extremities of the Hejaz (in today’s Saudi Arabia);

b- passing by Jabal al-Lawz (جبل اللوز) and Jabal al Maqla (جبل مقلة; lit. ‘burnt mountain’) that several explorers and authors, like Ron Wyatt, Lennart Möller and Bob Cornuke, identified as the Biblical and Quranic Mount Sinai; at this point, I have to add that quite pointlessly several academics, like James K. Hoffmeier, attempted to refute the conclusions drawn by those explorers, without however bringing serious arguments to the forefront of the discussion;

c- crossing certain parts of the Land Midian (מִדְיָן; مدين; Μαδιάμ), which was named after a son of Abraham; I have to herewith add that the Land Midian was quite well known to Moses himself, because according to the Biblical and Quranic sources, the leader of the monotheists, long before the Exodus, had to escape there alone, lest the pharaoh did not kill him (which automatically lets us understand that Moses had a certain experience in crossing those frontiers); and

d- advancing through parts of today’s South Jordan and South Israel, i.e. the Negev desert (הַנֶּגֶב; ٱلنقب; ἔρημος); it must be noted that the modern use of the term covers a slightly different region than the Biblical term. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Tiran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiran_Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_al-Lawz

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/جبل_اللوز

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/جبل_مقلة

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_Maqla

Jebel Al-Lawz

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/exodus-from-egypt/4217-thoughts-on-jebel-allawz-as-the-location-of-mount-sinai

https://www.dangerousroads.org/asia/arabian-peninsula/6495-jabal-al-lawz.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_M%C3%B6ller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Cornuke

https://baseinstitute.org/pages/mt-sinai

https://www amazon com/Explore-Life-Searching-Locations-Bible/dp/B07WHFC7RM/ref=sr_1_5?qid=1694881140&refinements=p_27%3ABob+Cornuke&s=books&sr=1-5

“The Search for the Real Mount Sinai” w/ Bob Cornuke

https://www youtube com/watch?v=bE_dKLz-v6k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Hoffmeier

https://wyattmuseum.com/discovering/mt-sinai

https nypost com/2021/10/02/archaeologist-claims-mount-sinai-found-in-saudi-arabia/

https://www.tovresearch.com/exodus.html

https doubtingthomasresearch com/

(Jim and Penny Caldwell) https://www.splitrockresearch.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_Islam#Escape_to_Midian_and_Marriage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narratives#Moses_(M%C5%ABs%C4%81)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev

Spending 40 years to cross these arid lands and circumferences, the monotheists, who followed Moses, in reality, carried out a unique double stratagem; in fact, they left Egypt in the last years of Merenptah’s reign (1213-1203 BCE), and most probably after the early clash between Egypt and the Sea Peoples, namely the Battle of Perire (1208 BCE) during which the Egyptian army managed to disperse the alliance made between the Berbers (Libyans) and the Sea Peoples. The deep religious division that characterized Egypt and the persecution that had taken place totally destabilized the country, which resulted in fanatic polytheists as monarchs and in conspiring viziers, priests, administrators and generals.

This situation became evident after Merenptah’s death, when Seti II (1203-1197 BCE), Amenmesse (as usurper; 1201-1198 BCE), (Seti II’s consort) Tausret (1197-1189; she ruled in reality only after Siptah’s death, but her rule ended in civil war), and Siptah (1197-1191 BCE) ruled in chaotic conditions gravely endangering Egypt’s existence. This means that neither the staunch monotheists’ survival in Egypt was guaranteed nor the very existence of the state promised. The menacing horizon could eventually turn the land of civilization into an inferno of barbarism, if the Sea Peoples won at the battlefield and invaded Egypt. If this occurred, the staunch monotheists under Moses should not be there, but preserve themselves intact in another location. Even more so, because Tausret seems to have been identical with Thuoris (Θούωρις), “who” -as specified by Manetho {Aigyptiaca; Fr. 55 (from Syncellus) According to Africanus}- “in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years”.

When Setnakhte (1189-1186 BCE), founder of the 20th dynasty and father of Ramesses III, took power in Egypt, very little time was left to Egypt; concealed behind intensely codified Pharaonic names, the few remaining Egyptian monotheists had first to decontaminate the Egyptian army and administrative body from all the subversive agents of the polytheists, namely the Memphitic priests of Ptah and the Theban clergy of Amun, and second to demarcate clearly the polytheist clergy’s role as exclusively sacerdotal of nature with absolutely no impact on the governance of the country.

Ramesses (1186-1155 BCE) had to deliver three battles {as recorded in the inscriptions found on the walls of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West) in the years 5, 8 (known as the Battle of Djahy; 1178 BCE) and 12 (known as the Battle of the Delta; 1175 BCE} of his reign to save his country and the History of Mankind. Egypt had to exercise its foremost spiritual powers and rely on the most ancient techniques of ethereal potency in order to compactly panic and horrendously confuse the barbarian attackers. So, spiritually dismantled, forcefully subdued, electrically stricken, and magnetically decomposed the defeated Sea Peoples were that they could never recover and actually their scattered parts and tribes never recovered. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Perire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_19th_Dynasty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenmesse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twosret

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/History_of_Egypt/2*.html {Fr. 56 (a) (from Syncellus) According to Eusebius}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siptah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Djahy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Delta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

And this shows the other half of Moses’ double stratagem; if the Pelasgians-Peleset-Philistines and the other Sea Peoples were successful in their attacks against Egypt, they would control the country, strengthening the religious force of the Memphitic and Theban polytheists (pretty much like two millennia later Charlemagne helped consolidate the power of the heretic Roman Catholic church). In such case, the Philistines would form a strong basis (a military encampment) in the southern confines of Canaan from where they would sustain their presence in Egypt. If the Philistines were defeated (as they actually were), they would apparently scatter (as they did) in the southern coast lands of Canaan, establishing primitive social structures and continuing their lives there (which is what happened).

By spending 40 years in the desert, the staunch monotheists, who followed Moses, took some distance, and gave themselves space and time; thus they could observe what would happen to Egypt and to its ferocious enemies, and then act accordingly. A defeat of Egypt may have sent them back to liberate the country from the evil and barbarian Sea Peoples, but as it happened, this was not needed.

The meaning of the original text of the Exodus was modified later, when the Ancient Hebrew kingdoms needed legends and epics to establish their monarchical ideology and to give themselves the role of the ‘chosen people’, which was the quintessence of the Assyrian imperial universalism, monotheistic dogma, messianic vocation, and eschatological belief. Duly Canaanized, the descendants of the Egyptian and the Hebrew monotheists, who followed Moses in the desert, became a ‘nation’ like the rest and the polytheistic rituals were only one aspect of their spiritual fornication. That is why it is difficult to understand the Biblical prophets: because the Egyptian past of the Ancient Hebrews was methodically de-contextualized long before this populace attributed to themselves a role invented by others in Mesopotamia, and not in Egypt.

But it is only due to this interpretation that Hosea (Ὡσηὲ) becomes meaningful (7:11): “And Ephraim was as a silly dove, not having a heart: he called to Egypt, and they went to the Assyrians” (καὶ ἦν Ἐφραὶμ ὡς περιστερὰ ἄνους οὐχ ἔχουσα καρδίαν· Αἴγυπτον ἐπεκαλεῖτο καὶ εἰς Ἀσσυρίους ἐπορεύθησαν).

VI. Iranians, Macedonians, Aramaeans, Romans: Reasons for the Confusion about the True Location of Mount Sinai

The confusion, which later covered the topic of the true location of Mount Sinai, has much to do with the numerous divisions (Cushitic-Sudanese pharaohs of the 25th dynasty vs. Berber-Libyan pharaohs of the 26th dynasty) and the various, successive conquests of Egypt (Assyrian, Iranian, Macedonian, and Roman), the loss of the largest part of Ancient Hebrews (conquest of Samaria by Sargon/Sharrukin II and transportation of the entire population of Ancient Israel, i.e. the ten tribes, to the northeastern provinces of Assyria; 721-718 BCE), the extensive destructions that took place during the conquest of Judah, namely the remaining two tribes, and Jerusalem (589-586 BCE) by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and the overwhelming transformation of the Ancient Hebrew religion into ‘Judaism’ during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE).

As a matter of fact, the very last indication that we have about Ancient Hebrews remembering correctly the location of Mount Sinai (or Horeb) is found in III Kings 19:8 (in modern English translations, such as NIV: I Kings 19:8); Elijah needed indeed ’40 days and 40 nights’ in order to reach the location (“So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God”; “καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἔφαγε καὶ ἔπιε· καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ἰσχύϊ τῆς βρώσεως ἐκείνης τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νύκτας ἕως ὄρους Χωρήβ”).

The most probable reason for the ensued confusion must be the fact that the long duration of the Iranian, Macedonian (: mainly Ptolemaic) and Roman occupation and administration of Egypt involved also the annexation and government of Palestine (or Judea) by the said empires; this resulted in new demarcation lines, administrative changes, and transfer of lands from one province to another, as different parameters weighed in to improve the local governance and the province functionality or also cross-province functionality. The aforementioned changes that impacted the topic of our research (namely the confusion about the exact location of the Biblical Mount Sinai/Horeb) concern basically two issues:

-the ‘Sinai Peninsula’ (to use the modern name of the region) started being viewed as part of Palestine (and at times, of ‘Arabia Petraea’: see below), and not of Egypt;

-the demarcation of boundaries between Palestine (at times called Judea) and Arabia Petraea varied from time to time. In this regard, several changes were not accepted unanimously, more particularly because they were meaningless to different people. Consequently, these changes were not reflected in their historical sources.

With the importance that the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba acquired for the Achaemenid Empire and following the circumnavigation of the Arabian Peninsula, the ‘Sinai Peninsula’ became an important region for the transportation of trade (and eventually army) from the Persian Gulf to Egypt and vice versa.

With the increased role that the Aramaean merchants acquired within and beyond the borders of Iran, we observe a growing number of Aramaean trade colonies being established across the vast trade network that we nowadays conventionally call ‘the Silk-, Spice- and Perfume-Routes across Lands, Deserts and Seas’. This does not only concern the famous caravan cities, like Hatra, Nasibin (Nisibis), Urhoy/Urfa (Edessa of Osrhoene), Tadmor (Palmyra), Dura Europos, Rekem/Petra, some of which were the capital cities of rather short-lived kingdoms; it also involves the foundation of new cities like Qena (Kaine; Καινή), an Aramaean outpost in Upper Egypt, Gerrha (Γέρρα), a major Chaldean Aramaean entrepôt and port of call in the Persian Gulf (ca. 100 km west of Abu Dhabi in today’s UAE coast land), which rivaled with or even surpassed Alexandria in wealth, and Ptolemais Theron (Islamic times’ Suakin / Sawakin), a Ptolemaic colony in Sudan’s Red Sea coast land (east of the continental kingdom of Cush that had Meroe as capital).

These developments ushered the local people into a totally new world, which was highly interconnected, markedly multicultural, and open to new faiths, mysticisms, cults and interpretations; however, within a shell of universality, interdependence and cohabitation, many atrocities could happen and did actually happen.

The Egyptian Ptolemaic control over Sinai was not the first period during which the southern parts of Canaan and the Sinai Peninsula were parts of Kemet (: the most common name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian hieroglyphics meant ‘the Black Land’); however, it was the first time when so many non-Egyptians were present and active in those regions: Iranians, Aramaeans, Yemenites and some Arabs. The entire area had a major strategic role as it was the borderland between Egypt and Seleucid Syria, a mighty opponent. Leaving aside the periods of Assyrian and Iranian occupation of Egypt, the Ptolemaic-Seleucid conflict was a real historical ‘remake’ of the Hittite-Egyptian rivalry.

This situation triggered the inception of the Aramaean Nabataean kingdom (3rd c. BCE – 106 CE), which -with capital at Rekem/Petra (Πέτρα) and necropolis at Hegra (Έγρα; ٱلْحِجْر) / Mada’in Saleh (مَدَائِن صَالِح)- controlled a sizeable territory including the northwestern confines of today’s Saudi Arabia (Hegra is located 560 km south of Petra and only 360 km north of Medina), the southern half of the modern kingdom of Jordan, and occasionally the eastern part of the Sinai Peninsula and the southern half of the state of Israel. It is noteworthy that, even without a proper kingdom in their hands, the indomitable Nabataean Aramaeans were able to inflict a very humiliating defeat on the Macedonian general Antigonus I Monophthalmus (the ‘one-eyed’) in 312 BCE (during the Third War of the Diadochi), when the inconsiderate combatant had adventured in the whereabouts of Petra.  

Rekem / Petra

Rekem / Petra

Rekem / Petra

Hegra / Mada’in Saleh

Hegra / Mada’in Saleh

The Nabataean kingdom played an important role in the increased trade between Alexandria and India, and if we believe the comparisons made by the partially pro-Roman Strabo, it had an even more significant position in the dramatically increased trade between Rome and China in the first decades after Octavian’s invasion and annexation of Egypt. The transformation of Egypt into a Roman province (30 BCE), the end of the Hasmonean kingdom of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE), and the short-lived Herodian Tetrarchy (4 BCE – 44 CE) only accentuated the importance of the Nabataeans, who accumulated great wealth due to the control of a part of the trade with the East that they were able to undertake.

The Roman conquest of Jerusalem (70 CE) in particular, the three Roman-Jewish wars in general {namely the First Roman-Jewish War (66-73 CE), the Second Roman-Jewish War (also known as Tumultus Iudaicus or the Kitos War, after the name of the Berber Roman general Lusius Quietus/Λούσιος Κυήτος, who was the 11th legate of Judaea; 115-117 CE), and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE)}, and the ensued stupendous destructions, involving the death, the enslavement, and the dispersion of a great number of Jews, also contributed to the lack of knowledge (and therefore confusion) about the location of the Biblical Mount Sinai.

As a matter of fact, the Nabataean kingdom was imperatively mentioned in the leading historical source about the trade between Alexandria, East Africa, Yemen, Iran, India, the Deccan, and China, namely the Periplus of the Red Sea (Περίπλους της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης; also known as the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea), which was written during the second half of the 1st c. CE by an anonymous Egyptian Alexandrian captain and merchant; the text details the navigation, the trade, the local societies, kingdoms, and ports of call, as well as the climatological imperatives throughout the Eastern coast of Africa (down to today’s Darussalam in Tanzania), the coasts of Arabia, Yemen, Iran, India and the Deccan, and up to Chryse (lit. ‘the Golden’, i.e. Indonesia) and China. In its 19th paragraph, the Periplus of the Red Sea mentions the Aramaean Nabataean king Maliku (Malichus II):  

“Now to the left of Berenice, sailing for two or three days from Mussel Harbor eastward across the adjacent gulf, there is another harbor and fortified place, which is called White Town, from which there is a road to Petra, which is subject to Malichas, King of the Nabataeans. It holds the position of a market-town for the small vessels sent there from Arabia; and so a centurion is stationed there as a collector of one-fourth of the merchandise imported, with an armed force, as a garrison”.

In the beginning of the 2nd c. CE, it became very clear that the Nabataean profit meant expensive products for Rome; following the death of Rabbel II (106 CE), Roman army was dispatched from Syria (the Sixth Ferrata legion) and Egypt (the Third Cyrenaica legion) to terminate the local structure and annex the territory. After invading Bosra (Βόστρα) and Petra, the Romans advanced in the south down to Hegra, also putting Leuke Kome (Λευκή Κώμη; White Town) under control. The events took place shortly before Trajan’s expeditions against Parthia (Arsacid Iran), during which (114-117 CE) Trajan proved to be the only Roman emperor to have reached the western shore of the Caspian Sea and the creek of the Persian Gulf in person.

Roman Empire around 125 CE

It was then (107-110 CE) that, during the tenure (106-116 CE) of the Greek Pontic Gaius Claudius Severus as the first governor of the new Roman province, the Via Traiana Nova (‘Trajan’s New Road’) was constructed to link Bosra and Petra with Aelana (modern Eilat in Israel and Aqaba in Jordan), and the Limes Arabicus (the desert frontier of the Roman Empire) was demarcated, involving the building of fortresses and watchtowers. The ultimate consequence of all these developments was the inception of the Roman province of Arabia Petraea.

Last, an even greater change, which took place as a consequence of the Roman annexation of the Nabataean kingdom, was the introduction of the Bostran Era, which was a lunisolar calendar that started on 22nd March 106 CE. The names of the months corresponded to those of the ancient Macedonian calendar, but the existing documentation (in Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic and Alexandrian Koine) preserved mostly the Aramaean Nabataean equivalents. Furthermore, the Bostran Era was the calendar of all the Arab and Yemenite Christians in pre-Islamic times; it was still in use at least 100 years after the Hijri calendar was introduced among Muslims, in spite of the explicit rebuttal of the lunisolar calendars by prophet Muhammad (a position that was due to the fact that these calendars necessitate intercalary months).  

Petra became the capital of the Roman province ‘Arabia Petraea’ (106 CE); initially, this province incorporated lands of Syria south of Damascus, the western part of Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, and the NW confines of Saudi Arabia. The part between Petra and Bosra was the true center of gravitation in the new province; major cities or urban centers involved notably Philadelphia (today’s Amman), Gerasa (Jerash/ جرش; Γέρασα), etc. At the time, the Roman Province Judea still existed, but it was merged with Syria in 135 CE. Arabia Petraea remained a province of the Roman Empire and later the Eastern Roman Empire for more than 600 years, being a rather peaceful frontier zone.

Following a local rebellion, under Septimius Severus (193-211 CE), the Roman province of Syria was divided into three parts, namely Syria-Coele, Syria-Phoenice, and Syria-Palestina (Palaestina); this surely increased the importance of Arabia Petraea, taken into consideration the rivalry of the two provinces that had already lasted for a century. The Roman Emperor even enlarged the territory of the loyal province.

Later, during the process of restructuring of the Roman Empire under Diocletian (284-305 CE), the southern part of the province of Arabia Petraea was transferred to Syria-Palestina; it then became a division of the ‘Diocese of the East’ (Dioecesis Orientis), which was a major component of the Praetorian prefecture of the Orient (Praefectura Praetorio Orientis; Ἔπαρχότητα / ὑπαρχία τῶν πραιτωρίων τῆς ἀνατολῆς). Last, during the 4th c., Palestina was divided into three sections, namely Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris (or Tertia), which incorporated the Sinai Peninsula. Arabia was then shrunk into a small piece of land between Bosra and Philadelphia (Amman). Petra was included in Palaestina Salutaris.

Diocese of the East – Dioecesis Orientis, ca. 400 CE

Praetorian Prefectures, and the Praetorian prefecture of the Orient

Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris (or Tertia)

Subsequently, the confusion about the geographical and administrative terms ‘Egypt’, ‘Palestine’, and ‘Arabia’ was plain and the uncertainly about the correct location of the Biblical Mount Sinai was absolute. For this reason, the Tiran Island (جزيرة تيران; יוטבת; Ἰωτάβη; Iotapa) was represented Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) by bishop Macarius whose diocese belonged to the Eastern Roman province Palestina Tertia (and not to Arabia or Egypt). The same is valid for bishop Anastasius of Iotapa, who participated in the Council of Jerusalem (536 CE). It was an absurdity that the Tiran Island (Iotabe) was considered to be part of ‘Palestine’ and at the same time, the Sinai Mountain was believed to be located where it is thought to be today, but the confused minds of the people of those days were not able to discern it.

The Tiran straits

About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataean_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonid%E2%80%93Nabataean_confrontations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_of_Paran

Philip Mayerson, The Pharanitai in Sinai and in Egypt {The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Vol. 47 (2010), pp. 225-229 (5 pages)}

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24519797

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_tetrarchy#See_also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War#Aftermath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusius_Quietus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea#Periplus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbel_II_Soter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#Nabataean_annexation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuke_Kome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Traiana_Nova

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Claudius_Severus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Arabicus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Roman_Empire_125_political_map.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostran_era

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasi%27

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_East

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Late_Roman_provinces#Diocese_of_Oriens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiran_Island#Ancient_history_-_Iotabe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem_(536)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaestina_Salutaris

VII. From Ptolemy’s Geography to Al Biruni’s Chronology

Writing his illustrious Geography (Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις; lit. ‘Instruction on Geography) in the first half of the 2nd c. CE, the Egyptian geographer, astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy divided the Arabian Peninsula into three parts, namely

a- Arabia Petraea (lit. ‘Rocky Arabia’), which basically consisted in a mountainous region stretched from the Gulf of Aqaba (Ελανίτης κόλπος; Elanite Gulf) to the southern confines of Syria and Palestine (or Judaea) and from the Gulf of Suez to the desert inland (which was called Arabia Deserta); this means that it included the entire region that we now call ‘Sinai Peninsula’. Among the cities mentioned by Ptolemy, we find Petra, Gerasa, Bosra and Elana (Ελάνα; Eilat/Aqaba) in the creek of the Elanite Gulf.   

b- Arabia Deserta (Έρημος Αραβία); as per Ptolemy’s Geography, this region was located south of ‘Mesopotamia’, west of Babylonia (which is the land we now call ‘South Mesopotamia’), east of Syria, Palestine and Arabia Petraea, and north of Arabia Felix (see below); this means that this part comprised the vast interior of the peninsula, involving several deserts, namely the Najd, the Nafud, the Dahna, and the Rub’ al Khali. Arabia Deserta was therefore thought of as totally deprived of coastlands.

c- Arabia Felix (or Eudemon Arabia; Ευδαίμων Αραβία); many modern scholars identify this region with just Yemen and Hadhramaut (the former states of North and South Yemen), but this is very wrong; a careful reading of Ptolemy’s Geography enables us to fully comprehend that the term ‘Arabia Felix’ denotes the following lands:

i- the long, mountainous region stretched (alongside the Red Sea coast of the Arabian Peninsula) from the Gulf of Aqaba to the oasis of Najran, which is the northernmost part of Yemen (being currently occupied by Saudi Arabia); ca. 1400 km long and about 100-150 km wide, this zone corresponds vaguely to the geographical term Hejaz (الحجاز‎) of the Islamic times. The Arabic term denotes the ‘barrier’, meaning the mountains that separate the desert (in the east) from the Tihamah plain (in the west). This narrow and oblong plain is located between the western slopes of those mountains and the Red Sea shore;

ii- the aforementioned lands that are regularly identified as ‘Arabia Felix’ by modern scholars, namely Yemen and Hadhramaut; and

iii- the lands of the modern states of Oman, UAE, and Qatar, as well as the Saudi coast land in the Persian Gulf almost up to today’s Kuwait. However, it has to be added that these Ancient Greek and Latin terms were used to also denote the city and harbor of Aden, which was the major entrepôt and port of call throughout the Arabian Peninsula (mentioned in the paragraph 26 of the Periplus of the Red Sea as part of the then merged kingdoms of Sheba and Himyar).

It goes without saying that the Roman province of Arabia Petraea was only a small part in the north-westernmost confines of the Arabian Peninsula. Contrarily, Arabia Deserta and Arabia Felix comprised of the major chunks of the peninsula. It is quite interesting to note that Ptolemy the Geographer describes the location and details the sites (and their positions) of Arabia Petraea in the seventeenth chapter of the fifth book of his masterpiece. The Greek text is available here – on p. 68 (Lib. V, cap. 17):

Ptolemy then proceeds with the description and the details of Mesopotamia (on p. 70; Lib. V, cap. 18) and dedicates the 19th (penultimate) chapter of the 5th book to the presentation of Arabia Deserta (p. 74). The last (20th) chapter of this book concerns Babylonia, i. e. South Mesopotamia. After the end of this book, the 6th book starts with the presentation of Assyria, Media, Susiana, Persis, Parthia, and the Desert of Kerman (Καρμανία Έρημος). Then, the seventh chapter of the sixth book concerns Arabia Felix (on p. 97). I expand on the way the great scholar of the Late Antiquity classified and presented his explorations, data, studies and conclusions, because it is essential for every reader today to understand that the Earth in general and the various lands more particularly were viewed very differently at the time. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hejaz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Felix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Deserta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea

https://www.academia.edu/23214313/Meluhha_Gerrha_and_the_Emirates_by_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafud_desert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-Dahna_Desert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%27_al_Khali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_(Ptolemy)#Content

This is how Ptolemy the Geographer describes the confines of Arabia Petraea (§ 5.17.1):

«Arabia Petraea is bounded on the west by that part of Egypt to which we have referred; on the north by Palestina or Judaea and the part of Syria along dividing line; on the south by the inmost point of the Arabian gulf, at 63°30′ & 29°50′ and by the Heroopolite gulf from the limit of Egypt up to the Pharan promontory, which is located at 65°00′ & 28°30′ and by the near side of the Elanite gulf, until its return at 66°00′ & 29°00′ The position of Pharan Kome is .65°00′ & 28°40′ Elana Kome, which is located in the inmost recess of the bay of this name, has this position 65°50′ & 29°15’».

As I already pointed out, the Elanite Gulf is the Gulf of Aqaba; I further clarify now that the Heroopolite gulf is the Gulf of Suez. An English translation (Arabia Petraea: paragraph 5.17.1; Arabia Deserta: paragraph 5.19.1; and Arabia Felix: paragraph 6.7.1) is available here: https://topostext.org/work/209

About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroopolite_Gulf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_of_Paran

https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/ptolemy-and-mecca/

Writing no less than 850 years after Ptolemy completed his Geography, Al Biruni (البيروني; Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni being his complete name; 973-1048) referred to the Exodus in his grand opus ‘Chronology’. The complete title of the majestic opus is (کتاب الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية/Kitab al-athar al-baqiyah ‘an al-qurun al-khaliyah) ‘the Remaining Signs of the Past Centuries’; it was completed around the year 1000. According to conventional wisdom, this masterpiece consists in a comparative investigation, discussion, and presentation of different calendars and chronological systems that were in use among people of different religions, cultures and countries.

It goes without saying that, to undertake such an enormous effort, the Chorasmian (Khawarizmi) Iranian erudite scholar Al Biruni (whose name originates from the Farsi word ‘birun’ which means ‘the periphery’ or ‘the suburbs’, thus denoting that the person was born outside an urban center) had learned and was able to read Syriac, Hebrew, Sanskrit and Greek, in addition to Farsi, Arabic, and several other Iranian and Turanian languages. To proceed to this research, Al Biruni was already highly knowledgeable in, and well acquainted with, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity (involving Orthodoxy, Monophysitism/Miaphysitism, and Nestorianism), Judaism, Gnosticisms and Manichaeism. In addition, he had clearly accumulated an impressively vast documentation.

However, Al Biruni’s Chronology is much more than the display of highly valuable skills in diverse fields, such as mathematics, linguistics, astronomy, physics, history of religion, geography, ethnography, and wisdom, which is an Islamic field superior to ‘philosophy’. A brief look at the Table of Contents of his superb treatise (involving 21 chapters) is quite convincing.

Before expanding on the calendars, the months, and the festivals of the Persians, the Sogdians, the Chorasmians (Khawarizmis), the Greeks, the Jews, the Christians, the Nestorians, as well as those of the Mithraic Magi, the Sabians, the pre-Islamic Arabs, and the Muslims, Al Biruni wrote entire chapters on ‘the Derivation of the Eras from each other’, ‘the different Opinion of various Nations regarding the king called Dhu-al Qarnayn’, ‘the Nature of the Eras’, and ‘the Nature of that which is composed of Days, viz. Months and Years’. This shows that the quintessence of the Science that he served, explored and developed was totally different from what people today believe as ‘science’; this is so because for Al Biruni the material universe could not possibly exist without being fully parameterized after the spiritual universe. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remaining_Signs_of_Past_Centuries

At the end of his 6th chapter, titled ‘On the Derivation of Eras from each other, and on the Chronological Dates, relating to the Commencements and the Durations of the Reigns of the Kings, according to the various Traditions’ (p. 87 of the book; p. 108 / 492 of the PDF, ed. C. Edward Sachau, London, 1879; see link above), Al Biruni writes the following paragraph in order to introduce a table of data, which is presented afterwards:

«The following is a synopsis of the years of their rulers, who ruled over them after their exodus from Egypt, when they marched towards Bahr al-Kulzum (the Red Sea) in order to pass it, and to Altih, a desert in Alhijaz, in the direction of Jerusalem».

The appellation Bahr al-Kulzum of the Red Sea is due to the Arabization of the Greek toponym Clysma (Κλῦσμα), which was a city and fortress (or military encampment) close to Arsinoe (today’s Suez) that was Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’s greatest port of call in the Red Sea. During the Islamic ages, the use of the geographical term Bahr al-Kulzum differed from time to time and from author to author, meaning either the Gulf of Suez or the Red Sea down to the Straits of Bab al Mandeb.

The term «Altih desert» is a unique expression; quite interestingly, the term «التيه» (altih), including the Arabic article, is the very typical word used with respect to the desert that the Ancient Hebrews crossed after the Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing. The most interesting part of the excerpt is however Al Biruni’s firm designation of Altih desert as a location in Hejaz, not the peninsula that we call now Sinai. About:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/تيه

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clysma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsinoe_(Gulf_of_Suez)

Taking into consideration both, the period in which Al Biruni lived and wrote his grand opus and his strong acquaintance with Christians and Christian historical sources, we understand that, at a time when most of the Christians believed that the Biblical Mount Sinai was located in the whereabouts of St. Catherine Monastery, the correct knowledge about the original location of the holy place was still maintained among erudite scholars. As a matter of fact, the term Hejaz was never attributed to the land we now -mistakenly- call Mount Sinai. However, extensive research is urgently demanded for the whereabouts of Jebel al Lawz in order to confirm what many explorers were already able to deduce one way or another.

————————————————————————————————–

Download the article (text only) in PDF:

Download the article (with 107 pictures and legends) in PDF:

Cursed Constantinople – Istanbul. Part I: the Burden of the Past, the Ominous Location, and the Original Name as Explicit Imprecation

In an 8-page article, which was initially published in a Greek monthly magazine back in 1988 and more recently republished online (in Greek) in several sites as both, text and video, I unequivocally described Constantinople – Istanbul as ‘the Lunar City’ (https://www.academia.edu/23392671/Κωνσταντινούπολη_η_Σεληνιακή_Πολιτεία_του_καθ_Μουχάμαντ_Σαμσαντίν_πρώην_Κοσμά_Μεγαλομμάτη). And in article published last year (29 May 2021), I determined that Sultan Mehmet II Fatih’s conquest of Constantinople (29 May 1453) was the most useless Ottoman victory, extensively analyzing the reasons, which should imperatively make the brainless and easily suggestible sultan abstain from such meaningless attempt at the time.

Quite unfortunately for him and his ignorant and unsuspicious successors, they made their capital of a city that was bearing an enormous historical burden, also involving a very perplex and extremely conflicting relationship with Rome, the real capital of Western European Christianity. Inanely enough the Ottoman sultans thought at the time that it would be possible to exorcize an unknown (to them) past with some incomprehensible (to them) verses of the Quran, and they therefore fell victims of few Satanic theologians (currently named ‘Sunni’, although the term is a neologism lacking any historicity), who falsely represented, viciously introduced, and abjectly misinterpreted Islam as a task of conquering, thus drawing Prophet Muhammad’s curse on them, their evil deeds and unfathomable idiocy. Here: https://www.academia.edu/43199538/29_May_1453_The_most_Useless_Ottoman_Victory

This article was translated into Greek and then republished in several Greek sites and blogs due to the interest that many Greeks showed for a very unusual, non-sectarian, non-conventional, and genuinely objective, historical scholarly analysis that did not start from an idiotically preconceived standpoint in order to try to defend a Christian thesis if the author is Christian, a Muslim thesis if the author is Muslim or an atheist thesis if the author is an atheist. Such a stance is genuinely ludicrous and quasi-automatically self-discredited – anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever. The Greek translation was also republished here:

https://www.academia.edu/43346356/29_Μαΐου_1453_Η_πιο_Άχρηστη_Οθωμανική_Νίκη

Contents

I. Today’s Fake Religions and Fake Sciences: Obstacles on our Way to find the Truth

II. No Imperial Capital can be located on the Seaside

III. Troy: Constantinople’s Real Predecessor

IV. Hittite-Achaean Alliance against Accursed Troy

V. Sea Peoples’ Invasions: Reaction to the Hittite-Achaean Alliance and the Trojan War

VI. Constantinople: as Troy’s Descendants, the Romans return …

VII. Iranians and Macedonians in the Turkish Straits, and the pro-Roman Stance of the Attalids 

VIII. Constitutio Antoniniana: Death Certificate of the Ancient Greeks

IX. The Rise of Sassanid Iran, Roman Defeats in the East, and the Roman Administrative Divisions

X. Praefectus Urbi; at the very Origin of the World’s most Perverse Theocracy: Papoceasarism

XI. Constantine I, the Slow Rise of Christianity, and the Events Preceding the Construction of Constantinople

XII. Constantine I, New Rome (Constantinople), and the Reasons for it

XIII. New Rome (Constantinople): a Disadvantaged Location as per the Principles of Geographical Determinism

XIV. New Rome (Constantinople): a Christian Empire’s Capital lacking Christian Credentials  

I. Today’s Fake Religions and Fake Sciences: Obstacles on our Way to find the Truth

Historical truth does not ‘justify’ any sectarianism and does not comply with the silly religious pseudo-beliefs of modern times. Today, there are no religions left, except for few systems of spirituality and faith shared by the indigenous inhabitants of remote societies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that live far from the modern technological world and the political regimes that tyrannize the Mankind. Today’s so-called official dogmas of the world’s major religions have been monstrously distorted and their spiritual – metaphysical essence disfigured. Their cosmogonic, cosmological, eschatological and soteriological dimensions were forged, and their moral doctrine was corrupted and conditioned on the modern world’s inhuman evilness. Their terms have been altered, the connotation of their key words and codes perverted, their cults falsified (‘reformed’ is the anodyne description of the fact), and their practice reduced to ludicrous and meaningless caricatures. That’s why today’s fake religions function as political ideological systems and ignorant, uneducated, uncultured and thoughtless ‘believers’ accept the monstrous lies that today’s pseudo-religious ‘leaders’ shamelessly propagate before joining Satan, their god, at the bottom of the Hell.

On the other hand, the modern historical science, as part of the wider circle of Humanities, has been founded on biased Renaissance times’ aberrations and peremptory assumptions, on the racist myths and arbitrary maxims of Classicism, on the inhuman aphorism of the Enlightenment, and on all useless and paranoid axioms of modern Western colonial political ideological systems (the infinite contamination of Jacobinism, Marxism-Leninism, parliamentarianism, conservatism, liberalism, Leftism, socialism, communism, Euro-centrism, neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, evolutionism, rationalism, Hegelianism, modernism, materialism, postmodernism,  de-constructivism, etc.). Any scholarly research, which is parameterized on any of the aforementioned and other minor systems, represents a deliberate distortion and an ignominious fallacy.

To discover the historical truth in any field of research one must go beyond all fake religions of our times, all philosophical systems, all political ideologies, all academic schools, all preconceived aberrations, all sorts of subjectivism and ego-centrism, and every inherent inclination to project today’s ‘values’, ‘principles’, criteria and measures on the historical times that one may wish to examine.

II. No Imperial Capital can be located on the Seaside

I am afraid that, for Christians and Muslims alike, for Turks and Greeks equally, historical truth is far bitterer, far direr, and far darker than they can even imagine. And when it comes to the Mediterranean Sea’s incomparably greater city today, quite unfortunately, its true greatness is specified in terms of sinister failure, ominous calamity, and obnoxious destruction.

In brief, Constantinople – Istanbul should have never existed. And, if by an erratic coincidence and abominable misfortune, few demented people constructed a town in that location, this agglomeration of edifices should always remain a sly passageway, a furtive station, and a basis for further expeditions or eventually a fated porthmus (strait; https://logeion.uchicago.edu/porthmos).

Either in the Mediterranean or worldwide, there was never a coastal city that became the capital of an empire in historical, pre-Renaissance times, except that city was the metropolis of a maritime realm (like Carthage) or the headquarters of a commercial network (like Alexandria). It is quite indicative: Alexandria’s importance in the trade routes between East and West (i.e. the silk, spice and frankincense trade routes across lands, deserts and seas) increased when Octavian invaded the Ptolemaic capital (30 BCE) and Alexandria ceased to be the capital of a kingdom; even then, Alexandria ad Aegyptum was somewhat eclipsed by the arch-rival city of Gerrha in the Persian Gulf, at least until the end of the Arsacid Parthian times (250 BCE – 224 CE). About: https://www.academia.edu/23214313/Meluhha_Gerrha_and_the_Emirates_by_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

Quite contrarily, Rome, which lies on the Italian Peninsula, is located at a distance of no less than 34 km from Coccia di Morto, which is the nearest coastal point (https://www.tripadvisor.it/Attraction_Review-g656615-d15755215-Reviews-Spiaggia_Coccia_di_Morto-Fiumicino_Province_of_Rome_Lazio.html).

III. Troy: Constantinople’s Real Predecessor

There had however been -long before Constantinople, long before Byzantium (the 1st millennium BCE city which was located on the same geographical spot, being first called ‘Lygos’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Istanbul#Lygos / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium)- another, very ancient, coastal city in the wider region, which comprises the Bosporus (İstanbul Boğazı), the Marmara Sea (Marmara Denizi), and the Dardanelles (Çanakkale Boğazı); this very ancient city was an exceptionally wealthy commercial center and the capital of a confederation, but not an imperial capital: Troy.

If we carefully observe and effectively contemplate the outline of the wider region, which separates the Black Sea from the Mediterranean Sea, we understand very well that 3rd–2nd millennium BCE Troy (Taruisha or Wilusa in Hittite; Truva or Troya in Turkish) was Constantinople’s real predecessor in a broader sense. As a wealthy rival of the Hittite Empire, Taruisha had the power to mobilize the Lukka (also known as Assuwa) Confederacy and generate serious troubles to the imperial capital Hattusha (Boğazköy), particularly when the Hittite army was fighting against the Babylonians, the Mitanni Hurrians, and the Egyptians in the vast empire’s S-SE borders.

From the highly informative Hittite archives, we learn that the Hittite Empire’s western confines were constantly in turmoil; the reason for this was the fact that the Balkan Peninsula was not part of the then civilized world, which involved Mesopotamia, SW Iran (Elam), Anatolia, Canaan (Phoenicia and Syro-Palestine), Egypt and Cush (Ancient Ethiopia, i.e. today’s Sudan). Crete, the Aegean Sea, the Balkan Peninsula and the rest of 2nd millennium BCE Europe were an unimportant, barbaric and consequently chaotic fringe that did not matter at all for the then centers of World Civilization.

In Western Anatolia, even now and then, disorderly elements among the Lukka, the Arzawa, the Hapalla, the Mira, the Wilusa, and the Assuwa (which stretch across the north-western confines of Anatolia) forced the Hittite army to forthwith cancel military operations in Mesopotamia and Canaan (then known as Amurru) and undertake expeditions to the West in order to pacify the chaotic periphery.

—————————————————————

Download Joachim Latacz’s interesting viewpoint on Wilusa (Wilios/Troia) as Center of Hittite Confederate in North-West Asia Minor:

——————————————————————–

IV. Hittite-Achaean Alliance against Accursed Troy

At a certain moment, the Hittites found it proper to strike a formal alliance with their relatives and subordinates in the Balkan Peninsula’s southernmost extremities, namely the Ahhijawa, who are identified by all Hittitologists with the tribe of the Achaeans (later considered as the earliest tribe of the Ancient Greeks). Hittite sources reveal that the tiny and marginal Achaean kingdoms were duly utilized by the imperial court at Hattusha in order to ensure safety in the empire’s western confines, when the bulk of the Hittite military force was engaged against the other great empires of the then known world in the S-SE borders, i.e. in territories of today’s Northern Iraq, Northern Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

One cannot have any doubt about the force, the wealth and the size of the rivals:

– Hattusha, the imperial Hittite capital, stretched over an area of ca. 270 ha, without counting the Hittite sacred land and religious capital at nearby Yazilikaya.

– However, the 13th c. BCE walled city of Troy (so, at its culminating point) did not cover an area larger than 74 acres (: 30 ha).

– And the tiny Achaean kingdom’s capital Mycenae had an area of 32 ha (including however the citadel and the lower town). Details and bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz%C4%B1l%C4%B1kaya

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz%C4%B1l%C4%B1kaya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language#Luwian_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assuwa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapalla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arzawa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mira

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Homeric_epics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaeans_(Homer)#Hittite_documents

What was later mythologized in Homer’s epics as Trojan War was nothing more than an expedition in support of the Hittite Empire and an attack of the South Balkans’ Achaeans, the relatives and allies of the Hittites, against the wealthy commercial center (Taruisha) that instigated all the anti-Hittite activities in Western Anatolia. The Achaean success, which satisfied the imperial Hittite needs in the empire’s western confines, proved however to be short-lived and ultimately calamitous for both allies, the Hittites and the Achaeans.

V. Sea Peoples’ Invasions: Reaction to the Hittite-Achaean Alliance and the Trojan War

Exasperated with the destruction of Troy, all elements of the anti-Hittite and anti-Achaean alliance, known as ‘Sea Peoples’ in the Ancient Egyptian historical sources, fomented a rebellion in South Balkans, Western Anatolia, the Aegean Sea, and Crete, destroyed the Mycenaean and other friendly kingdoms, burned all Achaean citadels, attacked and destroyed the Hittite capital Hattusa, spread throughout Canaan and Amurru (today’s Syria), and attacked Egypt where only after three land and sea battles was Ramses III able at last to disperse and annihilate them. The Annals of Ramses III, inscribed amongst others on the walls of his mortuary temple at Madinat Habu in Thebes West (today’s Luxor) describe in extreme details the events.

General background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medinet_Habu_(location)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medinet_Habu_(temple)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

Scholarly publications:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/986225?seq=1

https://www.academia.edu/26287366/Η_Ευρύτερη_Περιοχή_της_Ανατολικής_Μεσογείου_κατά_τον_13ο_και_τον_12ο_Αιώνα_και_οι_Λαοί_της_Θάλασσας_κείμενο_και_σημειώσεις_

https://www.academia.edu/22842873/LES_PEUPLES_DE_LA_MER_ET_LA_FIN_DU_MONDE_MYCENIEN

The conclusion that we can safely draw from this briefly mentioned major event of the History of Ancient Orient during the 2nd millennium BCE is that

a) the Turkish straits (the Bosporus, the Marmara Sea, and the Dardanelles) region cannot be the region of a major imperial capital; and

b) the Turkish straits region stands instinctively in opposition to Anatolia, and more particularly, the central Anatolian plateau can be the region of a major imperial capital.

In other words, the Pre-History of Constantinople-Istanbul proved to be nefarious, already 1500 years before Constantinople was first built in 324-330 CE (solemnly inaugurated on 11th May 330) and 2650 years before the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II invaded it on 29th May 1453.

Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, Thebes of Egypt (Luxor West): on the temple’s walls the most accurate depictions of the Sea Peoples and the longest narratives of the Egyptian victory over them can be found.

VI. Constantinople: as Troy’s Descendants, the Romans return …

It goes without saying that for no less than one and half millennia after Troy’s siege and destruction (1200 BCE – 330 CE) the Turkish straits region remained a largely unimportant periphery in the History of the Mankind; to be exact, the region was good enough for the role that the geomorphological environment determined it, namely that of a passageway – not that of an imperial center. No major city or state was developed in this region between the fall of Troy and the exquisite, monumental construction of the city that Constantine I wanted to function as an Eastern Rome or New Rome.

It is however noteworthy that it took 100 years for the new city to be endowed with an official description of its parts and monuments, namely the illustrious and lengthy Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae. Today’s stupid Greeks and idiotic Turks, who –both- so much claim that the accursed city is “theirs”, have failed to come up with a Modern Turkish or a Modern Greek translation of the fundamental text, which was elaborated in Latin, the then official language of the Eastern Roman Empire (the old Roman Empire was divided into two parts after Theodosius I’s death in 395 CE).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notitia_Urbis_Constantinopolitanae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire#Further_divisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy

This fact concludes the case of the two peoples, who incessantly prefer to live in darkness, ignorance, disbelief and falsehood, choosing the fallacy of their elites instead of the truth of their common historical documentation. This situation can only herald an ominous destruction for both peoples.

———————————————

Download the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae in Latin:

—————————————————-

The historical reality that Romans (and not Phrygians, Assyrians, Iranians or Macedonians) were the first to imagine it possible for a major imperial city to be constructed and function in that location only confirms Rome’s greatest poet Virgil and all the ancient Roman traditions, as per which the Romans were the descendants of the legendary Aeneas, one of the few Trojans who escaped the destruction of Troy, being of noble origin, since his father was the first cousin of Troy’s last king Priam.

These legends reflect a historical connection between the Romans and the NW confines of Anatolia and the wider region of the Turkish straits. Of course, the Ancient Greek and Romans myths are unreliable and we cannot afford to take them as historical texts, but the decipherment of Luwian hieroglyphic script and the study of contemporaneous, 2nd millennium BCE historical sources help us reveal the Luwian origin of that name: Pa-ri-a-mu-a (‘unusually brave). This name has been historically attested in several cases. In any case, the language of the Trojans was a Luwian dialect. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome#Aeneas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rome#Legend_of_Rome_origin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization#Origins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid

The Phaistos Disk Seems to Be Trojan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priam#Etymology

Colosseum, Rome
The Hippodrome of New Rome – Constantinople (now transformed into Sultan Ahmet Square / Sultanahmet Meydanı)

VII. Iranians and Macedonians in the Turkish Straits, and the pro-Roman Stance of the Attalids 

As one can easily surmise, many great historical developments took place worldwide during the period that starts with the departure of the last Trojans from their ill-fated and destroyed capital and ends with the construction of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, after many centuries of migrations, instability, divisions, and constant wars, in the late 5th and early 4th c. BCE, the wider region of the Turkish straits and almost the entire Balkan Peninsula became integral part and administrative units (‘satrapies’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire) of the Achaemenid Empire of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_the_Achaemenid_Empire: 550-330 BCE).

The worldwide unprecedentedly immense empire controlled all lands, seas, gulfs and lakes between the mountains of Transylvania beyond the northernmost confines of the Balkan Peninsula (https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-the-great/sources/the-gherla-inscription/), Macedonia and the eastern coast land of the Black Sea (https://kpfu.ru/staff_files/F_1398648344/IA54004.pdf), and further beyond, to the Old Suez Canal (Darius the Great’s Suez Inscriptions: Birth Certificate of the Silk Roads / https://silkroadtexts.wordpress.com/), the Red Sea and the empire’s eastern borders, which stretched from the Indus River Delta to Central Asia. Darius I’s Royal Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Road) linked Susa to Sardis (the former capital of Lydia), thus greatly minimizing the distance between the Turkish straits and the Persian Gulf.  

Both, Xerxes I the Great (in 480 BCE) and Alexander the Great (in 334 BCE) passed by the re-inhabited city of Troy and made sacrifices in the local temples’ altars. The latter invaded the chaotic periphery of the Ancient Greek cities and used Greek soldiers to prevail over the Iranian armies at a particular conjuncture: the imperial Achaemenid force was in decline and the Egyptians had revolted against Iran. As Alexander felt no enmity but admiration for the magnificence of the Iranian (not ‘Persian’) Empire, his otherwise misinterpreted campaigns’ sole result was the continuation of the Iranian Empire with another capital, namely Babylon. One must however add that it is very interesting that, although Alexander the Great founded many cities named after him, he did not find it opportune to found one city in the wider region of the Turkish straits. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_founded_by_Alexander_the_Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_(disambiguation)

His divided successors’ inability to maintain unity and stability in the vast empire led to the so-called Partition of Babylon (323 BCE), which in fact was the partition of the Iranian Empire among the numerous and incompetent pretenders to the throne. With the Asiatic and European coastlands of the Turkish straits divided between the remnant of the Macedonian kingdoms and the Attalids of Pergamon, it was only a matter of time for the Romans to secure a successful return to Anatolia. Quite revelatory of several intriguing trends, the Pergamon-based Attalid dynasty, which controlled the old territory of Troy, became the best ally of the Romans against the Macedonians, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. And Augustus rebuilt Troy to its past glory, naming the city Ilium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diadochi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attalid_dynasty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Classical_and_Hellenistic_Troy_(Troy_VIII)

Achaemenid Empire of Iran
The Royal Road from Susa to Sardis
Xerxes I the Great
The magnificence of Parsa (Persepolis): an unprecedented grandeur that never existed in the Mediterranean world.
Reliefs from the Achaemenid palace at Susa
The state of Alexander the Great divided among his quarrelling successors – 300 BCE
Res Publica Romana 146 BCE
Res Publica Romana ca. 85 BCE

VIII. Constitutio Antoniniana: Death Certificate of the Ancient Greeks

A major development that preceded the construction of Constantinople was the disappearance of the various ‘ethnicities’ (: nations) within the Roman Empire. Due to the groundbreaking Constitutio Antoniniana (which is also known as the Edict of Caracalla; 212 CE), every free inhabitant of the empire was given full Roman citizenship. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana

Because of the edict of Caracalla, the Greeks, the Cappadocians, the Phoenicians, the Syrians (Aramaeans), the Egyptians, the Gauls, and all the other nations of the vast empire were reduced to mere linguistic particularities around an overwhelming Orientalization – Latinization process of nation building. Following the extensive diffusion of Oriental religions, cults, mysticisms, worldviews, trends and ways of life throughout the empire, the old and obsolete pantheons of the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts and the other European nations were erased, and all the nations of the Roman Empire shared one common, typically Oriental, culture encompassing various religions, spiritual initiations, wisdom, cosmologies, cosmogonies, eschatology, soteriology, cults, and mysticisms of Iranian, Egyptian, Anatolian, Aramaean and Phoenician origin.

Progressively, the traditional cultural identities of the Greeks, the Romans and the other Europeans were thus totally altered and fully Orientalized. And when all the old nations that had been conquered by the Romans became Roman citizens within the Roman Empire, they were all amalgamated and transformed into a genuinely Oriental nation, the Roman nation, thus reducing their linguistic particularities and their literary narratives about the past into meaningless reminiscences. It was an unprecedented overwhelming victory of the people over the elite, of the collectivity over the individuality, and of the spiritual over the material.

Thus, when Constantinople was constructed, there were no more ‘Greeks’ (Achaeans, Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians) throughout the South Balkans and Western Anatolia; following the Roman occupation (146 BCE), the Greeks, like many other nations, namely the Illyrians, the Macedonians, the Thracians, the Phrygians, the Lydians, the Carians, the Lycians, the Cappadocians, became a subject nation of the Roman Republic. With the progressive cultural Orientalization (1st c. CE – 3rd c. CE), the Greeks became a culturally Oriental nation worshipping Mithra and Isis, while obliterating Athena and Zeus. Accepting the edict of Caracalla (212 CE), the Greeks admitted that there was no genuine Greek nation anymore, because they had no royal or other concept and system of governance that they would eventually prefer, cherish and opt for. With the imposition of the Roman imperial ideology, the Ancient Greek politics were irrevocably dead.

Caracalla
Caracalla’s public baths in Rome – Terme di Caracalla

This means that, before the descendants of the Ancient Greeks went physically extinct in South Balkans, following a) the extensive and merciless persecution of the pagans in the Christianized Roman Empire (4th – 6th c. CE) and b) the excessive depopulation process that followed the so-called ‘Barbarian invasions’ (4th – 7th c. CE), there were no descendants of Ancient Greeks, who valued their ancestry and defunct traditions.

Not one Greek-speaking inhabitant of Roman Greece (during the 1st – 3rd c. CE), let alone a local authority, bothered to

1- commemorate the ridiculous factoids and insignificant events of the so-called ‘victories’ of Marathon and Salamis (the 5th c. BCE fights against the invading Iranian armies, which became however of paramount importance only in the 19th c. (!!??) for the ludicrous modern pseudo-Greek state, which is merely an Anglo-French colonial fabrication),

2- pay tribute to the various worthless Ancient Greek kings, tyrants, authors or statesmen of the past (the likes of Agis, Cleomenes, Peisistratus, Pericles, Thucydides, Sophocles Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthenes, etc.), and

3- honor the memory of the otherwise disreputable Delian League.

That ludicrous past was not anymore theirs; so trivial it was that they left it in oblivion.

Anatolian Greeks survived however in Ionia and Pontus, being spiritually Iranized and Egyptianized (after adopting Mithraism and Isidism), culturally Orientalized, nationally Romanized, and linguistically Latinized. Still today, they represent a historical continuity of three millennia after having been Christianized (Eastern Romans, Ρωμιοί/Romii, Rumlar) and Islamized (Turks, Τούρκοι, Türkler). Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_migrations_to_the_Balkans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclaveni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Philipp_Fallmerayer

Analysis:

https://www.academia.edu/44758297/The_Fabrication_of_the_Fake_Greek_History_the_Nonexistent_Fallacy_of_Hellenism_the_19th_c_ailing_Ottoman_Empire_and_todays_Turkey

https://www.academia.edu/45050255/China_Turkey_Orientalism_and_Black_Athena

https://www.academia.edu/45121050/Turkey_China_and_the_Diverse_Forms_of_Colonial_Forgery_of_History_Fake_Muslims_and_the_Fake_States_of_Greece_Russia_Iran_India_Israel_and_Ethiopia_text_pictures_legends_intros_to_pictorial_sections_

Gothic invasions of the 3rd c. CE
3rd c. Invasions
A priest of Jupiter Dolichenus (Aramaean hypostasis of Mithra in Roman Syria) makes a dedication to Mithra for the Salvation of the Roman Emperors
Ceiling mosaic from the necropolis under St. Peter’s Cathedral in Vatican (Grotte Vaticane/vault mosaic in the Mausoleum of the Julii): Jesus identified with Mithra. Date: middle of the 3rd century

When it comes to the various Greek-speaking nations (i.e. the various descendants of the Phrygians, the Lydians, the Carians, the Lycians, the Cappadocians, the Thracians, the Macedonians, the Illyrians and the Pelasgians), during the first centuries of the Christian era they were not ethnically Greek, they were not culturally Greek, and they were heavily Latinized. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_romanus_sum

IX. The Rise of Sassanid Iran, Roman Defeats in the East, and the Roman Administrative Divisions

It is on this historical background that Constantine I decided to construct the new city. It was a period of upheaval for the entire empire; in the eastern borders, the wars with Iran, which started with the rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224 CE), caused disastrous defeats at the hands of Shapur I (240-270), one of the World History’s greatest conquerors and harsher combatants. Between 242 and 252, despite many wars in almost all of his frontiers, Shapur I defeated Timesitheus, Gordian III, and Philip the Arab, who had to sign a humiliating peace treaty after the Battle of Meshik (Mesiche/Μεσιχή; 244).

Following the subjugation of Armenia and Georgia, Shapur I won over Roman armies at the battle of Barbalissos (today’s Qala’at Balis) near Euphrates in 252, invaded Syria and Antioch, forcing the Romans to focus on the Eastern front. Valerian recaptured Antioch only to be defeated in 260 CE at the Battle of Urhoy (Edessa of Osrhoene, today’s Urfa in SE Turkey), which is the permanent nadir of Roman History, because Valerian was also held captive and grossly humiliated by the Iranians.

Cameo with representation of the victory of Shapur I (right) over Valerian (left) at Urhoy / Urfa (Edessa of Osrhoene) in 260 CE
Naqsh-e Rustam (7 km west of Persepolis): Bas-relief representing the victory of Shapur I over the Roman Emperors Philip the Arabe and Valerian (who was held captive in 260 CE). Behind Shapur I, stands Kartir, the high priest and religious reformer, who formulated Mazdeism, i.e. the Sassanid times’ version of Zoroastrianism.
Shapur I using the defeated and captive Roman emperor Valerian as a foot-stool to mount his horse
The colossal statue of Shapur I in the cave of Bishapur, near Kazerun (Fars, Iran)

The serious challenges in the East were not the Roman Empire’s sole problem in the middle of the 3rd c. CE; in the northern borders, the wars with the Germans, the Goths and the various invaders produced an alarming situation too. Furthermore, financial difficulties caused because of various irregularities in the internal and external trade, the ensuing internal unrest, various natural disasters, the problems related to the succession, and the difficulty to efficiently rule the vast empire ended up in a system of administrative division as per which the empire would be governed by two senior emperors (titled ‘augusti’) and their deputies (named ‘caesar’), so four distinct rulers, each controlling one part of the empire.

The administrative novelty lasted for four decades from Diocletian to Constantine I (284-324). As system, it was effective because it helped the imperial class of Rome to reinstate public order, military discipline, urban safety, institutional functionality and operability. However, this development generated four operational capitals, thus reducing Rome to merely a nominal capital under a praefectus urbanus (or praefectus urbi), who was not anymore under the direct supervision of the emperor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy#Detailed_timeline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praefectus_urbi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_prefects_of_Rome#4th_century

During this period, the four capitals of the respective administrative divisions were:

– Mediolanum (today’s Milan) for Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, and Northern Africa west of Cyrenaica;

– Augusta Treverorum (today’s Trier) for the territories of today’s France, England, Western Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands;

– Sirmium (today’s  Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia’s Voivodina) for the empire’s Balkan territories; and

– Nicomedia (today’s Ismit in Turkey), for the Roman territories in Anatolia, North Mesopotamia, Syro-Palestine, Egypt, and Cyrenaica.  

The aforementioned system is now called ‘Tetrarchy’, but this is a modern scholarly term, and it does not have any historicity; the analogies with the Judean Tetrarchy (after the death of Herod I) and the infamous persons involved in the coinage of the term (notably the Social Darwinist German historian Otto Karl Seeck) render its use absolutely unnecessary.

However, Diocletian’s administrative reform was a must; to some extent, it reflected a Roman reaction to another earlier and very obnoxious development, which did not last long, but rang a warning bell for the imperial Roman elite; in 271 CE, the imperial territory was dramatically shrunk due to the secession of the Palmyrene (Tadmur) kingdom (270-273 CE) in the East and the Gallic state (260-274 CE) in the West. Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyrene_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Empire

The Roman Empire in extreme danger, as the Aramaean kingdom of Tadmur (Palmyra) and the Gallic kingdom seceded around 270 CE.
Diocletian’s administrative reform and division of the Roman Empire into four parts (284 CE)

X. Praefectus Urbi; at the very Origin of the World’s most Perverse Theocracy: Papoceasarism

It is however noteworthy that Diocletian’s reform

a) familiarized Romans with operational capitals located far from Rome and at times on the very borderlines (notably Augusta Treverorum and Sirmium);

b) revealed that the empire’s main weakness was in the East, and this was due to the rise of the powerful Sassanid dynasty in Iran. The eastern Roman capital was located in the wider region of the Turkish straits and not in one of the two major cities in the East, namely Antioch and Alexandria, which were evidently viewed as very exposed to the Iranian armies and to other unpredictable challenges, notably various wealthy Aramaean ‘buffer kingdoms’ and caravan cities located between the Romans and the Iranians, such as Tadmur (Palmyra), Osrhoene (Edessa/Urhoy/Urfa), Adiabene, Hatra, Characene); and

c) generated as side-effect the concept of Rome being self-ruled and preserved in peace, while the operational capitals are far.

This reality, embodied in the status and the tenure of praefectus urbi, is the earliest form of Papocaesarism, i.e. the concept and practice of the Anti-Constantinopolitan popes of Rome. This concept stands at the antipodes of Caesaropapism, which was practiced in Constantinople and was imposed on Rome by Justinian I.

However, the opposition between Palace and Temple was the real historical background out of which the both, Caesaropapism and Papocaesarism, emanated as forms of spiritual, religious, theological and imperial juxtaposition and polarization; and this enormous background antedates the appearance of Constantinopolitan Caesaropapism and Roman Papocaesarism by at least 3500 years, as it is first attested in Sumer (South Mesopotamia) at the very middle of the 4th millennium BCE, even in period when no writing system had been introduced, but the archaeological material record is quite revelatory.

Without further expanding on the topic, which is vast and vastly documented either in the History of the Ancient Oriental empires or in the case of the ill-fated Roman Empire, I have however to admit that this contrasting issue (Caesaropapism vs. Papocaesarism) has played a determinant role in the permanent, fierce opposition between Rome and New Rome (Constantinople), extensively interacting also with the equally vast topic of the Sibylline Oracles and Books. The fact that the ominous contrast was carefully and systematically forsworn during no less than 3.5 centuries of pre-Christian imperial Roman rule demonstrates and confirms the absolutely sinister nature of Rome’s Christianization, which is something that very few people today are able to dissociate (as one always should) from the widespread diffusion of the early Christian faith and the rise of the Christian theology, namely the schools of Antioch, Alexandria, Caesarea of Cappadocia, Nisibis, Edessa of Osrhoene, and Seleucia-Ctesiphon (the Fathers of the Christian Church). Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism

N. R. Khan, Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism as Action Mechanisms of Christian Theocracy

http://vestnik.krsu.edu.kg/en/archive/39/1726

Download the PDF: / Скачать PDF:

It is quite interesting that the last holder of the title of praefectus urbi, after Rome’s fall (476 CE) and evidently much after the term had lost its entire importance, was none other than Pope Gregory I (590-604), one of the most anti-Constantinopolitan popes of the fallen Rome.

Texts, translations and further readings about the Sbylline Oracles and Books:

https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Χρησμοί_Σιβυλλιακοί

https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Χρησμοί_Σιβυλλιακοί/Βιβλίο_Γ

https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib15.htm

https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/

https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib05.htm

Download this PDF with list of resources (iconography and bibliography):

https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/bible/bible-pseudepigrapha/sibylline-oracles

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/future-of-rome/sibylline-oracles-and-resistance-to-rome/9DBB01548C7A221001B53F597298B44E (biased)

https://www.judaism-and-rome.org/sibylline-oracles-iii46-62 (biased)

https://www.skarlakidis.gr/el/books/proaggeloi/25-2012-09-08-10-52-58.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Oracles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl

Roman Empire 316 CE

XI. Constantine I, the Slow Rise of Christianity, and the Events Preceding the Construction of Constantinople

Constantine I advanced through the ranks during the times of Diocletian’s reform, which means that he understood the functionality of the system, its strengths and its weaknesses. His father, Constantius (also known as Constantius I; in later periods, he was usually called Chlorus), served as Caesar under Maximian. His capital was Augusta Treverorum (Trier, Germany). In 305, he was proclaimed Augustus with Mediolanum (Milan) as capital, while Galerius became Augustus in the East with capital at Laodicea (Izmit, Turkey). However, campaigning against the Picts in Scotland, he died in 306, thus opening the way for his son, Constantine (Flavius Valerius Constantinus), to be proclaimed Augustus by the Roman armies at Eboracum (York, North England). Constantine had spent many years in the courts first of Diocletian and then of Galerius, and during that period, he fought against barbarian invaders in the Balkan North and against the Iranians in Syria and Mesopotamia. Having asked permission to leave, Constantine joined his father in England few months before Constantius died.

Constantine’s territory comprised Gaul, Spain and England, but he was soon (end 306) challenged by Maxentius, who rebelled against him; a compromise was achieved between Maxentius’ father Maximian and Constantine, involving an imperial marriage between the latter and Maximian’s daughter Fausta. However, this solution did not last long, and the western half of the Roman Empire lived in absolute instability during 307-308. Since Galerius’ effort to pacify the rivals did not endure, Maximian revolted against Constantine in 310, but was defeated and forced to commit suicide. Constantine’s position was however very weak in the empire, as he was lacking a significant support; he therefore tried to get some religious backing, by replacing Ancient Roman gods with Sol Invictus Mithra as the supreme imperial deity and his own patron.

The period 310-324 CE represents a time of unrest and upheaval, not only at the administrative but also at the spiritual, cultural, and religious levels. The rivalry, fights, compromises, alliances and plots of several pretenders to the four imperial positions of the administratively divided empire produced a total chaos, which is not properly and impartially known to us, because many historical sources were deliberately destroyed (example: Constantine imposed damnatio memoriae on Maximian), various authors contradict one another, and even worse, the main Christian sources are highly untrustworthy, due to the extensively distortive effort, which was involved in writing a revisionist, pro-Constantine, biased narrative and a highly subjective and partial version of the facts.

A typical example of the degree of event falsification, which is commonly attested in these sources, is what we now call the Edict of Milan (Edictum Mediolanense; 313 CE). This was not a proper, solemn ‘edict’, but just an imperial letter dispatched by Licinius to the Roman administrative heads of his domain, namely the East; and it was sent from Nicomedia (only the meeting between Licinius and Constantine took place in Milan). This is how Lactantius, writing in Latin, describes it in his De Mortibus Persecutorum (On the Deaths of the Persecutors); however, Eusebius of Caesarea (Caesarea Maritima in Palestine), in his Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία (Latin: Historia Ecclesiastica/ English: Church History), presents the fact in a most solemn manner. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortibus_persecutorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_(Eusebius)

https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Historia_Ecclesiastica,_GR.pdf (page 174/180 of the PDF)

https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Historia_ecclesiastica_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf (page 793/838 of the PDF)

https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lactantius/demort.shtml (scroll down: chapter 48)

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm (scroll down: chapter 48)

Tyche-New Rome-Constantinople and Constantine in the 330s; the slow progress of Christianization is evident.

Of course, preposterous accusations of Eusebius for anti-Semitism are baseless and nonsensical, but one must admit that the Father of the Christian Church History presented his topics in very contrasting manner on a black and white background, eulogizing Constantine and vilifying Licinius in very subjective and peremptory way.

Following Galerius’ death, Constantine and Licinius had to strike an alliance to oppose their respective contenders, who made a strong bond against the two augusti. Constantine won Maxentius in the battle of Turin (Augusta Taurinorum) in 312 and little time later, in the battle of the Milvian Bridge (28 October 312), which has been highly mythologized by contemporaneous and posterior Christian historiographers, involving narratives about epiphany, dream revelations, supernatural phenomena, and spectacular solar halos. Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Turin_(312)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurogram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauros

Following Maxentius’ death and post-mortem dismemberment, systematic elimination of his public monuments and dismantlement of his guards, a real anti-Roman purge took place in Rome; the army of the imperial capital was totally disbanded. The Constantinian pogrom bore typical characteristics of a military coup. Numerous edifices were demolished and new structures built, while an enormous imperial propaganda was orchestrated to depict Constantine as ‘liberator’ in an effort to evidently break ground and depart from earlier Roman practices and traditions. Few people understand correctly what happened at those days; as a matter of fact, it had nothing to do with the rise of Christianity, as many erroneously assume, but it was rather the installation of an Anti-Christian regime in the semi-destroyed capital of the Roman Empire.

The disastrous developments brought Licinius back to the West, and it is on this background that the critical meeting between Licinius and Constantine took place in Milan (313). This event was later popularized as the beginning of the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire, whereas in reality the then established force was determined to break down the imperial cult of Ancient Rome, i.e. the quintessence of the Roman identity, while progressively introducing doctrinal elements that had nothing in common with what the great theological schools of Christianity could ever accept (notably the temporal power of the so-called ‘holy see’).

Of course, as a military man with elementary education and insubstantial intellectual faculties, Constantine had absolutely no idea of what was going on around him. His supporters’, allies’ and advisers’ back thoughts, evil ideas, and sophisticated schemes would outlive him by millennia. That is why he unintentionally but easily fell victim of the flattering descriptions and comments, which still today constitute the major elements of what is called ‘Constantinian shift’ or ‘Constantinianism’. Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome#The_Imperial_cult_and_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_power_of_the_Holy_See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

However, the aforementioned developments did not ensure peace in the divided Roman Empire; Licinius had to fight against Maximinus Daza in the battle of Tzirallum (in today’s Tekirdağ province of Turkey near the shore of the Sea of Marmara) and then to chase him up to Cilicia (Tarsus) where the unfortunate pretender died. Centrifugal forces were pulling the two augusti apart from one another, and the first battle between Licinius and Constantine took place in Cibalae (currently Vinkovci in Croatia) in late 316. Licinius lost also the battle in Mardia (presently Harmanli in Bulgaria’s Haskovo province), but Constantine’s subsequent miscalculations exposed him to risks and obliged him to make a peace deal at Serdica (Sofia) in early 317. It was clear that this would not last long and finally, after an early naval battle in 323, the battle of Adrianople (Edirne) in July 324, the naval battle of Hellespont (Dardanelles) in July 324, and the battle of Chrysopolis {Üsküdar on Istanbul’s Asiatic seaside, near Chalcedon ( Kadıköy)}, Licinius was finally defeated, imprisoned and then killed.

New Rome as it may have looked in the middle of the 4th c. CE

XII. Constantine I, New Rome (Constantinople), and the Reasons for it

Taking into consideration the fact that, few years before his final defeat, Licinius had restarted the persecutions against the Christians, Constantine I’s victory did not have only a personal but also an imperial dimension, underscoring the slow but solid process of Christianization that was already underway. There were several reasons that imposed the selection or construction of a new imperial capital. The Roman Quadrumvirate (or ‘tetrarchy’), which was initiated by Diocletian, proved to be as troublesome as the Roman Triumvirates, 400 years earlier, because it generated an inevitable antagonism. However, it also showed that critical changes had to be implemented and more importantly, there was an evident need of at least another capital closer to the northern and eastern borders. On the other hand, Diocletian’s capital (Nicomedia/Ismit), ca. 100 km east of the Bosporus straits, was known as the headquarters of the worst persecution against the Christians. Subsequently, the numerous, unprecedented developments that had taken place during the previous 40 years ruled out the selection of that city as new capital.

The apparent reasons that led Constantine I to the decision of founding a new capital in the location of today’s Istanbul are:

A- the need to better defend the eastern and the northern borders of the empire;

B- the urgency to often dispatch armies and fleets to the east within shorter time;

C- the demand for an impregnable capital;

In this regard, it is essential to note that the Bosporus and the Dardanelles constitute superb natural defenses against attacking fleets sailing from either the Black Sea or the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the Bosporus constitutes a formidable defense line against attacking armies coming from the East (Iran). In such occasions, Nicomedia would be far more exposed to the enemy.

D- the necessity to rupture with the earlier forms of spirituality, mysticism, religious traditions, eschatology, soteriology, and initiation rites that existed throughout the empire;

E- the exigency to strengthen the region (Roman civil diocese) of Macedonia where Christians were fewer than in the Italian Peninsula; here it has to be clarified that the Roman civil diocese of Macedonia encompassed all the southern confines of the Balkans, because the geographical / administrative term ‘Greece’ had already been abolished (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_diocese); and

F- the requirement to accommodate the desire to progressively transform Rome into a distant, yet authoritarian, religious capital for the entire Oecumene, which meant that either no emperor would have the city as capital or every local ruler would be subordinated to Rome’s urban and worldwide religious authority.

The comprehensive construction of the new city leaves no doubt that the earlier settlement (Byzantium) was -to its greatest extent- leveled to the ground and the entire site expanded after a new, entirely genuine and rather grandiose plan. The term ‘Byzantium’ was then obliterated and the city was proclaimed as capital on 11th May 330 CE under the name Nova Roma (‘New Rome’). Other names were also used, namely ‘Second Rome’ and ‘Eastern Rome’. We know that Constantine I did not name the city after himself; contrarily, he named a city in Palestine after his mother. This is actually the city’s worst point in its almost 1700-year long history. New Rome was also named Κωνσταντίνου Πόλις (‘Constantinou Polis’; Latin: Constantinopolis, i.e. Constantine’s city) later, but this was rather an adjectival use or a descriptive reference – and not an official name (Nova Roma Constantinopolitana).

This means that ‘Constantinople’ was not a name given to the city by its founder. It is therefore very wrong to make a parallelism between Alexander the Great and Constantine I, and imagine that ‘Constantinople’ is a name similar to ‘Alexandria’. The difference is not just the fact that the former is a composite name with two components, namely the emperor’s name and the Greek word for ‘city’ (polis); if Constantine I named after him the city that he founded, the name would be ‘Constantinia’. If that were the case, then most probably, Constantine I would also found other cities after him; but we know quite well that he did not do anything of the sort, although his architectural work is enormous in terms of urban expansion, military fortification, and sacral architectonics.

Several historical sources are missing due to successive destructions and at times because of premeditated acts; that is why our information is based on slightly later and often conflicting sources as per which in the official decree the city was called ‘Roma secunda’/’secunda Roma’ (Second Rome) or ‘Nova Roma’ (New Rome). The latter appellation is confirmed by Socrates of Constantinople, a 5th c. historian who is also known as Σωκράτης Σχολαστικός/Socrates Scholasticus; the former name is mentioned by Cassiodorus, a mainly 6th c. historian, who amongst others translated excerpts from Socrates Scholasticus’ works into Latin.

New Rome, the Forum of Constantine

This is what Socrates of Constantinople states:

he enlarged, surrounded with massive walls, and adorned  with various edifices; and having rendered it equal to imperial Rome, he named it Constantinople, establishing by law that it should be designated New Rome. This law was engraven on a pillar of stone erected in public view in the Strategium, near the emperor’s equestrian statue“.

(edited and revised with notes by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D.), book I, chapter XVI, p. 53/325

Basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_of_Constantinople

This is what Cassiodorus relates, translating Socrates Scholasticus’ text into Latin:

Quae cum primitus Byzantium vocaretur, auxit, et maximo eam muro circumdedit, et diversis ornatum fabricis aequam Imperiali Romae constituit; et denominatam Constantinopolim appellari secundam Romam lege firmavit, sicut lex ipsa in marmoreal platona noscitur esse conscripta, et in Strategio juxta equestrem statuam eius est constituta“.

https://books.google.ru/books?id=qzs_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP5&hl=bg&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false (p. 113)

Basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiodorus

Constantine I presenting New Rome and Justinian I presenting Sancta Sophia church to Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus as depicted on Ayasofya Museum mosaics.

XIII. New Rome (Constantinople): a Disadvantaged Location as per the Principles of Geographical Determinism

The imperial capital name issue was indeed a time bomb, which played a critically determinant role in the History of Christianity, in the History of the Roman Empire, in the History of the Mediterranean, in the History of Europe, and consequently in the History of the World. However, few people today know, let alone understand, the nature of this ferocious rivalry, which was due to many different factors.  

A very crucial factor was the location of the new capital, if viewed through the viewpoint and the perspective of the ancient science of Geographical Determinism, which was greatly elaborated, continually studied, and effectively relied upon in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Hittite Anatolia, Canaan-Phoenicia, Iran, Turan and China, before being further diffused among other nations and further developed down to Renaissance, when the rise of modern sciences overshadowed it. As per the principles of Geographical Determinism, the geomorphological location of New Rome (Constantinople) has several privileges, but in no way does it endow the city with traits of imperial capital. There cannot be capital of an empire that is located on the seashore, except for the case this empire is a counterfeit, devilish and ominous or eventually a cursed and maledicted state.

Successful capitals of empires can only be located nearby (or crossed by) rivers, at the confluence of two rivers, by the shores of a lake, at the foothills of mountains, and in vast plains or high plateaus. In other words, New Rome (Constantinople) would never make a Nineveh, a Babylon, an Assyria, a Hattusha, a Persepolis, an Istakhr or a Baghdad. Constantine’s city would never be the equivalent of Thebes of Egypt, Susa (the Ancient Elamite capital that the Achaemenids and Alexander made also theirs), Afrasiab – Samarqand, Xi’an {西安, i.e. the historical capital Chang’an (長安) of China} and Delhi. And it could not be a match for Rome.

Even worse, and despite its several undoubted privileges, New Rome was located in the maritime passageway between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea (namely the region of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus strait), which is not a recommendable location for cities, let alone capitals. It is interesting to note that, throughout World History and with the sole exception of Troy, there have not been major cities built in the maritime passageways. This concerns the Red Sea straits, the Persian Gulf straits, the Gibraltar straits, which are the most notable maritime passageways that have been historically documented and described.

To add insult to injury, New Rome (or Second Rome or Constantinople), constructed on European soil, contrarily to Diocletian’s capital Nicomedia, was the first imperial capital ever built in the Balkan Peninsula. This unprecedented fact highlights the urgency with which Constantine I was forced to act after his victory over Licinius. Back in the beginning of the 4th c. CE, it was very well known that no empire had ever existed on the Balkans. Alexander the Great abandoned his insignificant capital of Pella, and after conquering the Iranian Empire, selected the millennia long, holy Mesopotamian city of Babylon as his imperial capital.

When the Macedonian king arrived at the legendary city as a suppliant, the ‘Gate of God’ (this is the real name of Babylon: Bab-ili in Assyrian-Babylonian and KA-DINGIR-RAKI in Sumerian) had already a two millennia long historicity. No other city in the world, not even Thebes of Egypt, could at that time raise such a claim. As a pious and faithful emperor, Alexander zestfully renovated and resolutely rebuilt temples, altars, walls and palaces, therefore embellishing and expanding the only city in the History of the Mankind that was believed to be the center of the universe. This concept was later copied and reproduced by the Ancient Hebrews, the Jews, and the Muslims but in a rather trivial and extraneous manner.

As a matter of fact, the Balkan Peninsula was never home to great empires, even if we take into consideration the small kingdom of Macedonia, which was enormously despised and hated by the Greeks of the Balkans’ southern regions, if we are not ignorant, oblivious or mendacious enough to forget Demosthenes and his incessant diatribes and insults against the non-Greek Macedonians. When the empire of Alexander the Great was divided among the Epigones, the island of Crete was considered as Egyptian (not Macedonian) territory and it was ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty. Only the Eastern Roman and the Ottoman Empires were significant realms that controlled the Balkans, but the real center, the heart and the ‘soul’ of both states was Anatolia, not the Balkan Peninsula. Everything started in Anatolia and was then diffused in the Balkans; this has been the typical trait of History for more than 5000 years.  

The above truthful remarks do not however mean that New Rome (Constantinople) was doomed since Day 1; no, not at all! But, on the basis of ancient sciences, wisdom, and geomorphological analysis, it would be very difficult for an empire to effectively endure, advance, and focus on an expanding line of imperial order, while having its capital located there. Perhaps, Constantine’s capital would be good enough for two or three centuries. Then, the imperial capital should eventually be transferred to another location, and more specifically in the central plateau of Anatolia, which had already been the high place of a remarkably successful empire.

For the case of Constantine’s capital, the earlier negative impression that was left out of the experience of four imperial capitals (Diocletian’s administrative reform and division) only prevented the sole ruler of the Roman Empire from reconsidering the option – under totally different terms of course. Yet, there were many empires known for having more than one capital at a time; Achaemenid Iran is the perfect example in this case. Parsa (Persepolis) was the main capital of Darius I the Great; Pasargad (Pasargadae) was the old capital of Cyrus II the Great; and Hegmat-ane (Ecbatana, today’s Hamedan), the old Median capital, was their summer capital. Furthermore, Susa (Shushin, today’s Shush), known as major urban center of civilization since the 4th millennium BCE and capital of the kingdom of Elam, was also made capital. Last but not the least, Babylon, one of Mesopotamia’s holiest and most ancient sites, capital of the Nabonid dynasty (625-539 BCE), which was overthrown by Cyrus, and one of the pre-Islamic world’s most advanced scientific, academic, spiritual and religious centers, was also an Achaemenid capital. But the eventuality of multiple Roman capitals was ruled out, at least for the rest of Constantine’s lifetime.

However, in addition to the improper location of the new capital, the name itself produced a major problem, which functioned, as I already said, like a real time bomb. If Antioch or Alexandria was then proclaimed as imperial capital, it would be eventually risky from a military/geostrategic viewpoint, but the entire trouble with the name would be avoided.

Gradually, the appearance of Constantine changed in Eastern Roman Christian Art: Constantine’s vision and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in a 9th-century Eastern Roman manuscript.
Constantine’s dream as depicted in a 9th century Eastern Roman manuscript

XIV. New Rome (Constantinople): a Christian Empire’s Capital lacking Christian Credentials  

Founding a new capital in a disadvantaged location for imperial capitals and naming it after the earlier imperial capital, which was in the process of becoming the empire’s religious capital (at least this was then in the minds of Rome’s ‘Christian’ authorities) were not the sole ominous parameters of the foundation of New Rome. Although badly needed (the First Council of Christian Churches had to be held in Nicaea, today’s Iznik/Turkey, in May 325 CE), the new capital was quite prematurely constructed for a Christian Empire. Most of the people forget that, when New Rome was inaugurated in 330, the appearance of the newly-built capital had nothing in common with what one could describe 100 years later (around 430 CE) as a ‘Christian city’.

Although the gradual transformation of New Rome into a fully-fledged, ostensibly Christian urban center would not be, and proved not to be, a problem (and the new capital became an apparently Christian city after 380 CE, when the famous Edict of Thessalonica was promulgated), the real issue in 330 CE was a totally different issue. In reality, New Rome – Constantinople definitely lacked any Christian credentials, and -even worse- it was not located in a region known for its significant contribution to the then under formation Christian theology. Already, Rome was not a significant center of Christian theology and the local theologians were not doctrinally self-luminous; on the contrary, they extensively relied on the major schools of Christian theology, which were located in the East. This fact concerned New Rome even more markedly.

It is certain that Constantine I did his best to rapidly build great palaces, public buildings and temples; the famous Church of the Holy Apostles (after 1463-1470 it was rebuilt as Fatih Camii/Mosque) was constructed with the intention to transfer and accommodate the relics of all the twelve apostles of Jesus. Other objects deemed holy were also brought to the city in order to consecrate and protect the new capital: part of the Christian True Cross, the Rod of Moses, etc.; in this regard, it is essential to always bear in mind that most of these traditions may be part of the later need to build stronger testimonies justifying the position of New Rome as the imperial capital par excellence and as the leading Christian Church in the Orient. Basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Apostles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_of_Moses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boukoleon_Palace

The Church of the Holy Apostles as depicted in 12th c. Eastern Roman manuscript (Vatican Codex Vat.gr.1162)

Despite the aforementioned effort and the evident magnificence of the new capital, which featured impressive squares like the Augustaeum, monumental gates like the Chalke and the Golden Gate, great palaces like the Great Palace and the Palace of Daphne, a Praetorium, a Curia, an hippodrome, impressive colonnades along the main streets, majestic edifices like the Milion, several fora (forums), and the walls, New Rome’s imperial propaganda could not match that of Rome, which had already been firmly propagated as the main religious center of Christianity on the basis of systematic myths and unsubstantiated legends.  

A major point of the Roman propaganda about Rome’s credentials of Christianity is the narrative as per which apostles Peter and Paul founded the ‘Church of Rome’, before being supposedly martyred there at the time of Emperor Nero. The fable about Linus being ‘reportedly’ appointed as first bishop of Rome originates out of thin air; the entire story was fabricated by Irenaeus at a most crucial moment, when he was fighting against the Gnostic onslaught on the Christian faith in the middle of the 2nd c. CE. Irenaeus’ nonsensical comment about Tatian (the 2nd century’s leading theologian, author and exegete) being a follower of the Christian Gnostic theologian is quite enough to fully and irreversibly discredit the author of ‘Against Heresies’ (Adversus haereses/Κατά αιρέσεων).

Irrespective of Irenaeus’ veracity or prevarication, the fact is that Rome’s ‘Christian’ establishment had already produced its legends and propaganda tales, when New Rome was under construction. This situation, as it could be expected, produced its own dynamics which functioned in favor of Rome’s primacy (i.e. papal primacy). While building the new capital, Constantine also started and executed two major Christian architectural projects, namely the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the erection of the old Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. This is a good example of how the Roman primacy propaganda functioned at the time; the church was built on the hill where St. Peter had been supposedly buried and in this manner, an unsubstantiated narrative was ‘expected’ to be confirmed by a totally unfounded endeavor. All these aberrations would later be held as ‘proofs’ of Roman primacy. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy#First_Council_of_Constantinople_and_its_context

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_papal_primacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_papal_primacy#Bishop_of_Rome_becomes_Rector_of_the_whole_Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Religious_policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople#324%E2%80%93337:_The_refoundation_as_Constantinople

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Construction_(4th_century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter%27s_Basilica

The elements of religious forgery usually intermingle with the various components of theological life, therefore creating tensions; all accounts made, the down-to-earth reality of the Early Christian Church was that of incessant theological polarizations, debates, interpretations, doctrines, disputes and treatises. In that level, neither Rome nor New Rome really mattered; in an era of ferocious Christological controversies, which started in the East, none of the two cities was known for its erudite scholars, knowledgeable exegetes, and wise Fathers of the Christian Church.

In this regard, the Alexandrian school of Christian theology had already greatly advanced in the 2nd c. CE; the main rival schools of Christian hermeneutics were the School of Antioch and the School of Urhoy (Edessa of Osrhoene). Later, in the middle of the 4th c. CE, great theological schools appeared also in Caesarea of Cappadocia, Nisibis (Northeastern Mesopotamia) and Seleucia-Ctesiphon (Central Mesopotamia). However, neither Rome nor New Rome had formed until the middle of the 4th c. CE similar centers of Christian Patristic literature. Almost all major Fathers of the Christian Church belonged to the schools of Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, Caesarea, Nisibis and Seleucia-Ctesiphon. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechetical_School_of_Alexandria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechetical_School_of_Antioch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Edessa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Nisibis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Fathers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Seleucia-Ctesiphon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East

John Chrysostom, Father of the Christian Church and the most famous theologian of the School of Antioch (mosaic from the Ayasofya Museum)
Athanasius of Alexandria, the most famous theologian of the School of Alexandria (11th c. fresco from Hosios Loukas monastery, Athens)
St. Ephrem the Aramaean (Syriac), one of the leading Fathers of the Christian Church and the most famous theologian of the School of Urhoy/Urfa (Edessa of Osrhoene)

While victorious Constantine attempted to create an entirely new, Christian Roman Empire with capital in the East, the forces that had earlier supported him applied a wrong treatment on him; for these forces that dwelled in Rome, Constantine’s construction of a new capital far from Rome was conform to their interests, but his appellation of the new capital (New Rome) was unacceptable. Even worse, the great respect and love that the emperor felt and expressed toward Eusebius of Caesarea and Constantine’s tendency towards Arianism were intolerable and incalculably disastrous for them and their elaborately concealed version of counterfeit Christianity.

Today most of the people believe that Constantine was against Arius, but this is very wrong indeed; this is only the interpretation given to the facts by the systematic forgers, who many centuries later turned so openly and so vociferously against New Rome – Constantinople. In reality, in the beginning, Constantine I was rather neutral between the ardent theologian Arius and bishop Alexander of Alexandria; but he could not afford to oppose the majority of the participants of the First Council of Nicaea. However, one must remark that this theological dispute, which was in fact an internal affair of the Church of Alexandria (and had therefore to be solved within the limits of that Church), skillfully became a key topic for all Christian bishops and theologians only to subtly promote Rome’s position among the other Christian churches, already at a moment when the new capital, New Rome, was under construction (325).

The First Council of Nicaea as depicted in the Eastern Roman Christian Art
Posterior propaganda and falsification: Arius depicted as defeated and fallen down (!!) in the First Council of Nicaea. From a painting of the 14th c. Great Monastery of Meteora, Greece
Raffaello’s viciously fallacious version of the First Council of Nicaea in Vatican’s Capella Sistina

This helps us also understand why the fervently built new capital did not have all the highest level dignitaries of Rome; there would not be and finally there were not ‘quaestors’ to supervise the public treasury, elected ‘tribunes’ to protect the people’s interests or ‘praetors’ to administer justice. The ‘senators’ of New Rome did not have the superlative title ‘clarissimus’, but the simple adjectival form (positive degree) of ‘clarus’. And atop of the new capital, there was a proconsul and not a praefectus urbanus (or praefectus urbi). This situation tells us clearly that, while New Rome was still under construction, there was already an opposite force at work.

For the forces that wanted to turn Rome into a religious capital of the entire empire, the new capital’s name New Rome was a permanent source of destabilization and discredit.

These are the forces that propagated the use of the name ‘Constantinople’ instead of ‘New Rome’ throughout the Roman Empire and kept pressurizing on this issue until the middle of the 15th c.

These are the same forces, which did not accept the New Roman/Constantinopolitan selection of the Roman popes, as Justinian I stipulated (a practice that lasted from 537 until 752).

These are the forces that opposed the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (Πενθέκτη Σύνοδος – Concilium Quinisextum), which was held in 692.

These are the forces that coined the nickname ‘Graeci’ (Greeks) for the Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire as early as the 8th c. CE.

These are the forces that triggered the Schism (first in 863-867 and finally in 1054) between Rome and New Rome – Constantinople.

– How can we identify them?

– The easiest and commonest way would be to call them ‘the anti-Constantinopolitan party of Rome’; they also had their fifth column in New Rome – Constantinople, i.e. the ‘pro-Roman party of Constantinople’.

However, this way of identification is external, confusing, and clearly misleading. This is so because for the forces that wanted to turn Rome into a religious capital of the entire empire (and later of the world/’Ecumene’), the imperial capital name issue was in reality only the smokescreen. As such, it was used by them to conceal a calamitous reality, which concerns the entire world today.

This reality was however known to the anonymous author of the illustrious Chronicon Paschale – only too well. That is why he denounced the calamitous reality, by naming New Rome – Constantinople simply, briefly and strictly ‘Rome’.

By so doing, the author of the Chronicon Paschale, who lived at the time of Emperor Heraclius (610-641), simply rejected flatly the Christian identity of Rome. If New Rome – Constantinople is the only Rome, then the old Rome is not ‘Rome’ anymore. This automatically means that the old Rome is not Christian at all.

How the centuries-long confrontation with the non-Christian (or pseudo-Christian or Anti-Christian) Rome dragged New Rome – Constantinople to several unnecessary compromises that brought about the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire, I will explain in the forthcoming second part of the present series of articles.

And how the confrontation between Rome and New Rome – Constantinople or, to put it correctly, between the Counterfeit Anti-Christian Rome and the True Rome (which is New Rome – Constantinople) continued during the Ottoman times (1453-1923), because Mehmet II’s ignorance, foolishness and idiocy led him to uselessly and calamitously invade New Rome – Constantinople, claim Roman continuity, and  even proclaim himself as Roman Emperor (without having a clue of what it takes to be a Roman Emperor), I will explain in the forthcoming third part of the present series of articles.

One point can be surely deduced from the aforementioned presentation: the forces that wanted to turn Rome into a religious capital of the entire empire would have surely been satisfied, if in 476 CE both parts of the Roman Empire had collapsed and disintegrated at the same time. Then, they would not have needed to keep an ace up their sleeve for longer; they would have revealed their ominous intentions quite sooner. And the final deception, i.e. the anti-human, anti-Christian, and anti-Godly Renaissance, would have taken place almost 1000 years earlier.

And this is the Satanic fallacy that Raffaello, the Benedictines-Jesuits, and the Anti-Christian Rome (Vatican) dare to diffuse as Constantine I the Great’s ‘baptism’ by Eusebius of Nicomedia!

———————————————–

Download the article in Word doc: