A long time ago. Hopefully in sequence but who really knows. I will add links later. It is for Bibi Netanyahu who knows nothing about history.

My view is that to bring an end to this awful war that Netanyahu should be arrested. He does not benefit anyone, not even Israelis. That removes Netanyahu's attempts to make Israel a hegemon.

That then leaves the oligarchs of North America to decide whether they want to try and drag non-oligarchic Americans into a war with China for nobody's benefit except the oligarchs. China imports most of its oil from Iran so yes this is a dangerous moment in history. Anyway the story so far.
------------------------
1. Egypt very rich. 

2. Orpheus’s head, which has been detached from its body by some wanton muses (not to be confused with Mosos the gal or Moses the Manly man of later times) after he had lost his wife because he looked back when he shouldn’t have (not to be confused with Lot’s wife), floats down the Hebrus (not to be confused with Hebrews) river in Macedon/Thrace and out to Lesbos where he meets up with Jesu..er Belia... er Apollo, for a Lesbos musical talent contest. He tries not to look back. Isn’t Greek myth fun?

3. Persians takeover Egypt. Become very rich.

4. Persian/Greek wars. Persians destroy the Athenian temple in 480BCE, Athenians none too happy about it.

5. Greeks give the Persians a kicking at Plataea near Thebes, tell them to get lost and chase the stragglers to the Hellespont. Well that's what we’ve been told anyway but as it was Herodotus who told us you may need a few grains of salt with that one.

6. Democrats rise in Athens, Athens expands to an empire by engaging in a 50 year series of wars with its neighbours called the Pentecontaetia. Pente is Greek for five or fifty, the Greeks, uniquely for several hundred years until a people who had access to Dr Who’s Tardis, were very fond of their fives, fifties and so on. Anyway according to Herodotus first on the list of those warred against is a northern town where the walls fall down. Third on the list is Assyria.

7. Sparta and Athens go to war. Athens decides it can afford to spend it’s horde of silver on the task. Persians watch the spectacle and provide refreshments for the next 30 years.

8. Thucydides, an Athenian, tells us about it, including a reason why, as a General, he was late turning up at one stage. Athenians don't believe him and exile him. He goes to Sparta and continues to write until a few years before Sparta takes the spoils.

9. Athens runs out of silver.

10. Oligarchs take over Athens for a while but fairly quickly get put back in their box. Male Athenians who are not slaves have tasted democracy and don’t like not appearing to have a say in what the Oligarchs do. 

11. Sparta the protector of Greek freedom fails. Freedom loving Greek neighbours of Sparta rejoice. Freedom loving Helots party until the sun comes up. Well supposedly anyway, but lets not diss Argos just yet.

12. Plato muses (note not Mosos or Moses) on his perfect very oligarchic undemocratic society, one which would have 12 strictly controlled tribes doing what the Oligarchs told them to do. This seems to be based on Athens legendary founding by 12 tribes in the 19th Century BCE. Strangely 2410 years later a Facebook page is set up basically calling him a fascist and suggesting that he be deleted from history, which is somewhat amusing really.

13. Herodotus turns up writing very much in a style later historians would say was somewhat similar to the Penteteuch (translated from the Ancient Greek this means ‘five make ready' although some will say that it means what it came to mean later which is basically ‘five books’’), writes on the Persian wars with a Greek bias amongst other matters and mentions Alexander of Macedon in passing as a good guy in the war at Plataea in 479 BCE. Macedonians it could be noted were allied to the Persians.

14. Philip of Macedon, who considers himself Greek, which 21st Century Macedonians will vehemently deny from one end of the internet to the other, has a son called Alexander by Barbarian wife (might be an idea to note that). His son is given a Greek education including by Plato’s student, Aristotle. There are some who think Aristotle might have been a fictitious character made up at Plato’s academy, but I can’t comment other than to say how could he be fictitious when he taught Alexander the Great?

15. Alexander of Macedon (v.2 later known as Alexander the Great and well educated by Aristotle!) takes over Near East, destroying Persian empire in process and consequently becomes very rich but dies early without heirs (KISS). Historians of the 21st Century later come to consider Alexander to be somewhat ‘problematic’. Maybe like his teacher?

16. After a bit of a fight, Ptolemies and Seleucids divide the spoils of empire. Athenians prominent and Macedonians somewhat absent in the ruling junta of these kingdoms for some reason. Sparta is now more or less forgotten, or maybe just forgotten to be remembered.

17. Ptolemies combine Zeus with a bull and create the god Serapis so as to get native Egyptians onside with their new rulers. Religion it seems is somewhat malleable for Greek elites.

18. Mosos the woman demigod who gives the laws to the people appears in Near East and is still confounding the editors of the Jewish Encyclopaedia 2200 years later. Not to be confused with muses or Moses who are of course completely and utterly unrelated. Oh yes they are.

19. After annoying both Greeks and Carthaginians in Southern Italy and Sicily for a while the Romans turn up at Carthage and Corinth in the same year (146 BCE) and sack both. Surviving Carthaginians wander in the desert for the next 40 years. Or so we’re told.

20. Ptolemies/Seleucids may have shown some signs of concern at this development, after all the Romans wern’t Greeks even if they had stolen the Greek gods.

21. Supposed Jewish sectarians at Qumran try and set up their version of Plato's perfect oligarchic society, with strict community rules for members based on birth, logically choosing an incredibly arid desert with no easily accessible drinking water to do this. They then build a series of baths just for the hell of it. Although their texts indicate that they were one of many of such camps this is ignored by Dead Sea Scroll historians 2100 years later who insist that they were sectarians and probably Essenes to boot because Josephus mentioned Essenes. Luckily nobody looks up ‘us’ in Ancient Greek and takes insult. Josephus tries to outdo Herodotus with lies. Strangely despite Moses (ed. please note not Mosos or muses and definitely not mosus) being given the Torah at least a thousand years earlier this is also the earliest attestation we have to the texts of the Pentateuch even if they are a little more varied than they became shortly afterwards.

22. Romans takeover from the Gr... er Jews in Palestine and a short time later from the Gr.. er yes Greeks in Egypt.

23. Herod the Great (whose mother was a Barbarian by Jewish law if I may prompt you) rebuilds the temple in Jerusalem as the first temple was destroyed by the Persians in either the 5th or 6th century BCE depending on who you believe and the Jerusaleminites were none too happy about it (prompt, prompt). When he dies his funeral and the procession following it is a copycat of Alexander’s (no relation). Otus have become giants by this time in Greek myth, but luckily for the three Abrahamic religions nobody notices for the next 2000 years, or at least nobody survives noticing. Herod the Giant is Herod Otus?

24. Qumran evacuated for whatever reason, but seems to have been somewhat carthartic (a new word at the time courtesy of the Latins, see 146 BCE) but documents in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic left behind in caves including an almost impossible to open copper treasure map outlining where 60% of the known worlds treasure at the time could be found which seems to have been hidden for some reason (The Romans are at the Gates!!). It is in Hebrew but with annotations in Greek. Names of those hiding the treasure are all Greek names. Later historians will assert that Jews had Greek names because Jews were Hellenized. No other theories seem to have ever been considered. Never. Nobody notices that the Jews never Persianised or that Hellenes could have Judaised. No, no, no.

25. War Scroll details series of wars the Hebrews had with their neighbours over a 40 year period. Note this is 40 years not 50 years. According to this first on the list is a northern town where the walls fall down. Third on the list is Assyria. Eschatalogical style of this text confuses later historians. Gosh that's easy to do (and please do not compare this to number 6 in this list).

26. Boethus of Sidon a Greek who studied under Adronicus of Rhodes expounds on why he thinks the soul is not immortal. (archeological evidence attests to this)
.......and at exactly the same time

27. Boethus of Alexandria a Jew who studied under Antigonus of Sokho expounds on why he thinks the soul is not immortal (Rabbinical and Talmudic writings attest to this). Later 21st Century Historians of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the Boethusians, followers of Boethus (you get to choose which one) according to Rabbinical and Talmudical sources, can be compared to the Essenes who Josephus said believed, without question, in the immortality of the soul. The contrast in philosophy is seemingly missed by these historians, who nevertheless pride themselves on their 21st century impartiality. Sokho was in Judea. It’s not to be confused with Oikos which means ‘house’ in Greek because that would be backwards of you. If you want to look up anti gon and us in Ancient Greek that’s up to you.

28. Jewish soldier does a report in Greek for his superiors and apologises for not being able to write it in Hebrew as he doesn't know the language well enough. He is of course assuming that Greek won’t be a problem for his superiors or that later historians won’t think logically about this and question his own origins. Evidence is that he was right about both.

29. Around this time a Temple is built in Syria at Dura Europos. When found 1900 years or so later it is first considered to be a Greek Temple but then when it is realised that the very Greek looking paintings on its walls are stories from the Penteteuch it is then claimed as the Worlds oldest Synagogue (for some reason they seem to be missing in the earlier Palestinian archeological record) albeit that the rather effusive paintings in the Greek style cause surprise as this is thought to be somewhat un-Jewish. This causes mirth 1900 or so years later for at least one cynic.

30. Josephus inserts himself at this point (yes that’s right ‘inserts’) after, by his own account as he was a somewhat modest as well as truthful man, luckily surviving drawing straws in a cave. Writes a history of the Jews in Greek after betraying them to the Romans. Also writes Against Apion, in Greek again, to put Apion back in his box who was apparently asserting that the Jews were not as ancient as they claimed to be. Later historians accept Josephus’s version without dissent including modern impartial 21st Century ones. For some reason by the 21st Century Josephus's texts have survived, but Apion's havn't. But this is probably just an accident of history.

31. Someone changes the name of the Hebrus (not to be confused with Hebrews) river to Maritsa (in English that would be Mary). Not sure why, but I’m sure Mary was a very popular name at the time.

32. One 20th Century Jewish writer trying to coattail on the Ancient Greeks fame will claim that Hebrew (and er.. Arabic) is just encrypted Ancient Greek but his book fails to get reprinted despite later attracting very large prices on Amazon.com for available copies.  His name is not Apion.  In fact he writes more like Josephus than apion but obviously prefers Greek coattails and who wouldn’t?

33. A 21st Century writer notices the similarities of the Penteteuch (now called the Torah) and Greek Myth. Writes a book suggesting that the Ancient Jews must have drawn a little on this myth. Some then get to notice that there doesn’t seem to be any other type of myth in the Torah and that myth might not be the only Greek part of the Pente.. er Torah, Uh oh..... is Pente really a Greek word too?

In 1897 Dr Solomon Schechter found in a Cairo Karaite Synagogue over 140,000 fragments and documents from the 10th and 11th Centuries including what is now referred to in shorthand as the CD or the Cairo Damascus document. An older, but more fragmented, version of this document was later found at Qumran (in the late 1940s) by Bedouin. The CD remains of much interest because of the slight differences in the text and the different ordering of the text between the two discoveries. The Cairo text has also allowed a much better reconstruction of the Qumran text than possible with some of the other Qumran texts. This in turn allows for more detailed analysis of the actual text.

In his “The Influence of Hellenistic Secular Poetry Upon the Dead Sea Scrolls”2 Glen G. Aduana compares the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Damascus Document, to the great literary canon of the Ancient Greeks. For example he compares the following that is in the Damascus document (but using the New Revised Standard Version translation of Psalm 151);

The mountains do not witness to him, 
nor do the hills proclaim;
The trees have cherished my words 
and the flock my works.

3

to the Greek mythic figure of Orpheus “whose legendary singing was
so powerful that the entire countryside was moved when he played”4. Orpheus is of course the mythic figure who kept on singing even as his disembodied head floated down the River Hebrus5. If we put aside for the moment that Orpheus and his wife are very much like the Biblical Lot and his wife in the earlier part of that Greek myth we may instead shift our attention to Apollo who managed to quiet Orpheus when he finally made it to Lesbos (or at least when his head made it there).

Apollo, or at least his Biblical equivalent, seems to figure from the very beginning in the Damascus document that starts off with a reference to a fallen people and the devastation that came upon them because of their failure to abide by God’s laws. It states that “and abominated the generations on account of blood and hid his face”6 and “All flesh which there was in the dry earth decayed and became as if it had never been, for having realized their desires and failing to keep their creator’s precepts, until his wrath flared up against them”7. The parallel with Greek Myth here is with Oedipus who, after he had realized that he had been tricked into marrying his mother by the god Apollo, had proceeded to stab his own eyes out and thereby ‘hidden his face’. He of course also assumed that his misdeeds had bought deadly pestilence to his city8 much like the text in the Damascus Document clearly indicates has happened.

Rather interestingly Apollo in the Ancient Greek canon was known as the god of Light, his symbol was that of the serpent or the snake and he was very closely associated with the number seven9. There are therefore strong similarities of Apollo to Belial of the Damascus Document, and the Bible, who is reputedly some sort of Lord of Darkness10 although this is not clear in the Damascus Document itself where it could be construed that he is associated instead with light. Belial too is represented by the serpent or the snake and is also associated with the number seven11.

The Damascus Document also sets out the traps set for those who disobey God, or maybe Belial, and states that “They are Belial’s three nets about which Levi, son of Jacob spoke” and “The first is fornication; the second, wealth; the third, defilement of the temple”12. There are close parallels here to the Book of Jubilees where Noah warns his descendants “from fornication, uncleanliness and from all injustice”. But there are much stronger parallels to the Odyssey of Homer where the messenger, Argeiphontes, answered Apollo at one stage in the epic: “Would that this might befall, lord Apollo, thou archergod—that thrice as many bonds inextricable might clasp me about13” which is followed by the three Gods, one of Fertility (Poseidon)14, one of Commerce (Hermes) and one of the Delphic Oracle (Apollo) discussing those bonds (or nets as they are sometimes translated as) in a very similar, almost identical, manner as is set out in the Damascus Document.

Although the Ark is only briefly mentioned15, and in this context it may not be the story we know as Noah’s Ark (albeit it is taken as so by Martinez), it is worth noting here that the oldest version of the flood story is Atrahasis which is expanded on somewhat in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both of these originate in Mesopotamia/Sumeria. But the Flood story also makes it into the Ancient Greek canon where the Noah like character is known as Deucalion. This Ancient Greek version is very similar to the Biblical version and unlike the earlier Sumerian Atrahasis and the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh (where the Noah like figure is called Utnapishtim) versions it includes a very Genesis like list of Deucalion/Noah’s descendents and the ‘nations’ that they founded. Once again we have strong Ancient Greek parallels to the Biblical narrative.

At one point16 in the Damascus Scroll we have the following rather enigmatic text “When the two houses of Israel separated, Ephraim detached itself from Judah, and all the renegades were delivered up to the sword; but those who remained steadfast escaped to the land of the north”. A straight reading of this would have Ephraim as an ally of Judah but not necessarily a part of the two houses of Israel, the second member of the two houses unmentioned. Here once again there is an interesting parallel with Ancient Greece, and that is Samos as the ally of Athens during the Peloponnesian War and possibly the exile of the Democrats after Lycurgus had conquered Samos. Athens and Sparta the equivalent of the two Houses.

Further the statement that “And Israel, they shall be ten in number as a minimum to (form) thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens”17 sounds rather peculiar to someone who has been bought up in a decimal system where the numbers would move from hundreds to tens without an intermediate step at fifties. It is also mentioned in the same way in Exodus 18:21 and 18:25 and Deuteronomy 1:15 of the Bible. An analysis of the systems in use by Ancient civilisations of the Near East show that the Babylonians used a base 60 system, the Egyptians a standard decimal system and the Phoenicians a numeral system consisting of separate symbols for 1, 10, 20, and 100 in a more or less standard decimal system. So we don’t find any help there. The Ancient Greeks on the other hand differentiated five, fifty and five hundred, in fact five was an integral part of their numeric system. The only other power to have used fives as part of their numerical system would seem to be the Romans but it would be assumed that they’d copied the Ancient Greeks. The peculiar counting in the Damascus Document is therefore most likely Ancient Greek in origin albeit there is the slight possibility that it is Roman. It would seem odd that a people of Palestine who were not only not Greek but also fairly strongly opposed to the Greeks would have used it (the same could be applied to the Romans if needed).

The Book of Hagy mentioned quite frequently in the Damascus Document seems to have caused some confusion in DSS circles. There are several different theories about what it might refer to or what the letters or the word might mean often attempting to place the root of the word in Aramaic or Hebrew. But it seems that Hagy is simply Ancient Greek for Holy18. As a reference therefore to the ‘Book of Holy’ the meaning would seem obvious. The Greek word seems to have been transliterated using the Aramaic or Hebrew alphabet and this would possibly indicate a preference for the original Greek word.

In a similar manner is the reference to the House of Peleg. Some have surmised that this refers to the Pelagasians. Jacob Bryant surmised that Peleg or Pleg was a dispersion when he tried to make sense of Homer’s reference to it in the Illiad19 but this may be an anachronism as Pleg in Ancient Greek meant, as best as can be ascertained, ‘entwined’. This would seem to make sense in the context that it’s been used in the Damascus document (as well as in the Iliad), simply indicating that the two Houses of Israel are entwined.

The extent of the parallels between the Damascus Document and Ancient Greek Myth are a little surprising but nevertheless it would seem difficult to deny that they do exist. It is hard therefore not to consider the possibility that the people of Qumran were Hellenes first and Jews second. The seeming use of Greek terms/words written in the Aramaic or Hebrew alphabets also indicates an Ancient Greek or Hellene identification and the possibility that the Stories/Histories spoken of are Ancient Greek and not Near East or Levant20 in origin provides a further basis for this view.

20

I realize that this is somewhat of anachronistic term in this context but it also seems uniquely useful.

My contention is that the Hebrew religion (and people - across the River Hebrus maybe) were invented by the Ancient Greeks drawing on work done earlier by Plato. A work of the 1st Century BCE.

Strange huh? A real stigma right?

Edit 13:12 AEDT: Here it is a little larger due to a question in the comments.

Characters such as Agamemnon, Helen and Menelaus were all part of the Iliad that has traditionally been dated to a 7th or 8th Century writer called Homer and to a 12th or 13th Century Mycenaean era setting. It was by all accounts one of the most popular tales in Ancient Greece. This is a story about a thousand Greek ships sailing against Troy, a non-Greek (but seemingly non-Barbarian as well) walled city. They are led by Agamemnon although not without challenge from Achilles. There is very little democracy in the Iliad, in fact where it exists it’s likely on the Trojan side rather than the Greek. And the gods are everywhere especially as dispensers of justice, in fact the tale starts with Apollo’s anger with the Greeks and his levying of plague as penalty. Further Greek aristocrats such as Diomedes, Achilles, Agamemnon and Menelaus have taken leadership roles that, are by the natural order of things, their’s to have. Meanwhile non-aristocratic upstarts like Thersites are frowned upon and put into their places quickly. This then is a strictly hierarchical society, one where the Aristocrats right to rule is never questioned by the lower echelons. But it is a bloodthirsty one too, where justice is seen at the end of a sword blade more often than not.

This theme is continued in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, where the returning Agamemnon comes home to Argos with his Trojan captive (and lover by most accounts) Cassandra and after a stilted and ominous welcome from his wife Clytaemstra dripping in double-speak, both Agamemnon and Cassandra meet their deaths at Clytaemestra’s and her lover Aghiestus’ hands, Agamemnon supposedly murdered in his bath. The reason for this murder itself is said to be due to the fate of Iphigenia which is not completely clear in Agamemnon but who is generally assumed to have been sacrificed by her father Agamemnon so as to bring the winds necessary for the Greek ships to sail to Troy. But there is also an element of blood revenge present due to the participation of Aeghistus, whose siblings were murdered by Agamemnon’s father and served up as a meal to their father, Agamemnon’s uncle. But murder in pre-democratic Ancient Greece meant little more than the burden of revenge being handed to family to avenge, often to the next generation. In fact Agamemnon’s murder itself can be traced back not just through his niece and nephew murdering father but also to his god insulting grandfather. Now the task of revenge is handed down to Orestes and Electra, Agamemnon’s son and daughter. In The Libation Bearers Aeschylus expands on this and by guile and violence Orestes, with the help of both his sister Electra and his friend Pylades, murder both his mother, Clytaemestra, and her lover Aeghistus. But immediately after this matricide and murder Orestes starts to feel guilt and threat from his mother’s furies, as he realizes that his dreams of ending the bloodletting have only extended it, something that his mother forewarned him of. As a result Aeschylus The Libation Bearers is a critique of Homer’s ideology and not an extension of it.

Aeschylus then wrapped up this tale in The Euminides that is somewhat of a tribute to the new Athenian Courts of Justice but he did so with little detail and with Athena holding ultimate power over their still aristocratic decisions. Here she uses her deciding vote to set Orestes free but due to the democracy of the decision the Court has supposedly also ended the blood curse. But if we step back for a minute we can see that the start of The Libation Bearers there is a scene where Orestes has returned without his sister’s knowledge and they meet with her desiring his return but not knowing that he now stands in front of her. This scene is repeated, admittedly with changes, in both Sophocles’ and Euripides Electra who both then expand on a similar plot to Aeschylus’ The Libation Bearers. Sophocles though is harking back more to The Iliad and its Aristocratic themes, there is no sign of Courts of Justice or democracy in his version. Nothing therefore to lead into Aeschylus’ The Euminides and its Courts of Justice, no matter how compromised they might be. In Euripides Electra on the other hand Orestes is mindful of the matricide he has committed and is commanded by the Dioscuri to run to Athens. This tale then segues seamlessly into Aeschylus’ The Euminides (but not before changing the story of Helen at Troy). It seems that there is a barely disguised fight here between ancient playwrights and intriguingly it seems to even involve Homer. But that is a distraction, as with Orestes a play from Euripides twelve years after he wrote Electra it seems that Euripides may have set out to expand on, or provide a version of Aeschylus’ The Euminides updated for a later part of the 5th Century. This in turn may have been prompted by Sophocles version of the Electra tale that seems to have come many years after Euripides’ own version.

Many commentators have critiqued Orestes. For example in the introduction to the Orestes play in Grene and Lattimore’s book on Euripides William Arrowsmith states that the Orestes ‘has long been an unpopular and neglected play, almost an unread one’. Although he then goes on to say he thinks it is undeserved the comment itself is a true one, of a certain kind of classicist anyway. But it is at odds with the popularity of the play from 408 BCE to the 2nd or 3rd Century CE. According to M. L. West it was not only the most popular of Euripides plays but the most popular of all tragedies. He then goes on to say that “snobs may dismiss this popularity as evidence of debased taste. Let them, Orestes is not an Agamemnon or an Oedipus, but it is first-rate theatre…”. I would be tempted to add that The Iliad, the most respected of all ancient plays is just a rather base attempt at propaganda by a 2nd rate aristocracy loving propagandist. Art as they say is in the eye of the beholder and there seems little doubt that Orestes was well liked after it was first performed.

The period from 479 BCE to 404 BCE was a stark one for Athenians, first there was a fight with Persia and then for 50 years Athens set out to build an empire. Finally at the end of it there is a long drawn out war with its Laconian neighbor ending in Athens defeat in 404 BCE. In addition there was plague, oligarch versus democrat in an often deadly competition for political control as well as a flowering of literature to address these themes. Euripides writing Orestes in 408 BCE was writing as Oligarch and Democrat witch-hunts alternately punctuated the city’s equilibrium and war threatened defeat. He allegedly left Athens for Macedon late in his life disappointed in what Athens had become. So although there is no doubt that features of Athens, it’s Law Courts, its often threatened democracy made it into Orestes maybe Euripides dejection with what Athens had become also made it in there as well. William Arrowsmith says in his introduction to Orestes in Greene and Lattimore that he was “tempted to see in the play Euripides’ prophetic image of final destruction of Athens and Hellas’. It is worth noting too that there is no obvious siding of Euripides to either the Aristocratic order or the Democratic order, he seems contemptuous of both.

The themes then would have had wide appeal not just for the first Athenians to see the play but to those who saw it later after Athens had fallen, as Athens would have sat astride the immediate history of the Mediterranean for quite some time. There is little doubt that features of contemporary Athens made it into Orestes but so too did they make it plays by Aeschylus and Sophocles although Sophocles was no democrat so his themes differed somewhat. In my view you can see a progression of democracy through the journey of Orestes from the aristocratic version of Aeschylus to the more cynical but more widely inclusive version of Euripides. At the same time Sophocles seems to have given the Oligarchic side dissemination of their ideas that resembled those of Homer in the Iliad. And it may be that Sophocles and Euripides parried blows in the theatre for their different ‘teams’. The fact that Orestes was wildly popular, and possibly the most popular play of all of antiquity, with its learned audiences, lays a substantial blow on the snobbish claim that the play was anarchic, anachronistic and inferior. Because it wasn’t any of these things, its sole wrong was to give democratic themes a hearing.

Bibliography

Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama, Toronto, 1967, p. 213-24 (readings)

Burnett, A. P., Catastrophe Survived, Oxford, 1971, p. 202-22 (readings)

Euben, J. P., Corruption in Euripides’ Orestes’, in Euben, J. P. (ed), Greek Tragedy and Political Theory, 1986, p. 222-7, 229-51 (readings)

Grene, David & Lattimore, Richard (eds.), The Complete Greek Tragedies, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. Volumes I, II & IV.

Homer, the Iliad, trans. Richard Lattimore, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Lloyd, M., The Agon in Euripides, Oxford, 1992, p. 113-29 (readings)

West, M. L., (ed) Euripides. Orestes, Warminster , 1987, p. 26-39 (readings)

Wolff, C., Orestes, in Segel, E. (ed), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, Oxford, p. 340-356 (readings)

“Neither Britain, a province fertile in tyrants, nor the Scottish nations nor the barbarous nations about to the very ocean, did ever acknowledge Moses and the prophets”
- St Jerome in his “Ctesiphon the Pelagian

In Gildas as edited by Michael Winterbottom it is stated that Gildas consciously used both the old and new testaments in his writing to show where the Britons had gone wrong1. I’m not sure that I noticed too many Britons or too much of the New Testament on the first read of it. There is though plenty of Old Testament and a somewhat archaic version of the Israelites’ history, if that’s what it can be called, but it’s a little difficult to decipher with our knowledge of todays Bible. Regardless of the version of the Bible Gildas was using the question that presents itself is whether this is a valid history of Britain or England or is it a lie stamped backwards on a people who would not have recognized their new identities? Who is Gildas? And is he really writing about the Britain we know today? Finally what about Bede and Nennius, is there anything different that we can pick up from these writers which maybe we can’t from Gildas? Can we get blood out of a stone? Can we distill truth from lies?

“But no-one should think that anything I say is said out of scorn for humanity or from a conviction that I am superior to all men”.2

Gildas is incredibly quick here, it’s almost as if he expects exactly that sort of criticism, a sure sign of where his opposition will lie? In this translation he then goes on to say as ‘god is his witness’ but, and allowing for my latin being almost non- existent, there is nevertheless no sign of the word ‘Deus’ or any of its derivatives in the original Latin at this point, leaving it open maybe as to what or who is ‘dominus’3. In verse twelve we do get a reference to a god or gods, but this time in the Latin the word is ‘dei’ which can be plural, and only seems to be singular when writing of the Christian god, a somewhat peculiar arrangement for a people of as many gods as the Romans. Further the original Latin of ‘The History of Britain’ at verse does not even mention Britain and verse three gets translated without the reference to ‘librata ab Africo’ which is in my translation ‘free(d) of/from Africa’. It then goes on to describe a territory with wide plains, great rivers with significant tributaries and mountains to pasture livestock on. Not meaning to be disrespectful, although why not go with the flow, but this all seems somewhat unlike the Britain that I know. The Thames for example is more a stream than a river in the Cotswalds.

In Nennius, these words are put into the mouth of Vortigen’s son (who according to Nennius is issue also of Vortigen’s daughter), "Thou art my father; shave and cut the hair of my head.”4 Odd is it not as this seems strangely similar to the Normans habit of cutting their hair so as they could differentiate themselves from the local Britons but of course it’s too soon in the historical record, or should be too soon at least.

Also strangely for someone who should be a Barbarian himself, the advice given to Vortigen is that the citadel founded at Heremus (a nice Germanic name once again) will be safe against the Barbarians5. But he fails to build the citadel because materials vanish strangely in the night. He then is told by his twelve wise men that he must find a child born not of a father. One can hardly fail to notice the parody, or even contempt, of the Christian Son of God here, although the son does then seem to rise above the fray. And in Chapter 46 we have a story that seems very similar to the one from Greek myth, where the Daanan wives murder their Aegyptus husbands. Here it might be worth considering Emily Albu6 and her view that the story of the Normans is very similar, in fact almost identical, to that of the Trojans in the Aeneid.

Bede of course leveraged himself off Gildas but there are some oddities. In both Bede and Gildas Britain in the English translation is described as 800 miles long and 200 miles wide. But in Gildas’ Latin its not centorum but gentorum that is of the eight, so it wasn’t a description of length, but best as I can work it out anyway, a description of the number of (maybe prominent) families or tribes. And although Bedes’ length of Britain is not in question his description of Ireland is. According to Bede it has a very mild climate without the need to indoor animals in the winter or to make hay in the summer for winter feed. But the biggest oddity is that he has Ireland as longer than Britain and stretching as far as Northern Spain. These writers are it seems, despite their renown, quite a lot less than 100% accurate.

We must therefore go to the archeological record. Sutton Hoo is the most famous find in Ancient Britain and it is from early in this period and it’s completely pagan. There are some attempts to extract Christianity out of the burial site with the use of the names “Saulus’ and “Paulus” in Greek found in several places but to be kind this is a stretch. In “An Archeology of the early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms” on page 175, C.J. Arnold says this “..but whether we consider paganism or Christianity, it is harder to see the workings and activities of such religions” and then “..Christianity, in the form envisaged by contemporary written sources, may have taken many years to develop”. Elsewhere it is noted that the oldest churches seem to date to the 11th Century not to the 7th or 8th Centuries and that “Even the details of early Christian worship are obscure”. It seems that it is hard to find Christianity in the archeological record for that period Britain.

Many have questioned the seemingly Greek origins of Biblical myth over the last few years7. But is it just Greek myth at play there? There seems to be a lot of Herodotus in the Bible and Polycrates Tunnel and Wall on Samos seem to me to be a much better model for Hezekiah’s tunnel and wall than the ones we have in Jerusalem now. There are also many other parallels with Greek history in the Bible. So could it possibly be that Biblical history is just Greek history re-writ for political motives as set out in Plato? Is it a product of the Athenian and/or the Macedonian empire (via the almost unbelievable Alexander) rather than the Palestinian desert? I would suggest that one could be forgiven for thinking such. But now that the scene has been set, what really do we know of the British past and who the Anglo Saxons were? Is this period’s British History just someone else’s history updated for the people in question and given appropriate names within a relevant language? Are the Anglo Saxons, like the Ancient Israelites, more myth than real, a template for an attempt to contrast the present and to provide a moral fibre to allow elites to rule without the dissent of the poor? Was early middle ages England Christian in any way at all? When all is said and done it seems that maybe we need to ask what is the truth if it is not holy?

Or in this case Roman?

Note:
There seems to be a classical style pun in Gildas’ name. Firstly in Latin ‘das’ can mean ‘to give birth’ or ‘devote’ and ‘gil’ means ‘pale yellow’ or ‘dun coloured’. In Latin (and Ancient Greek), gold can be rendered as Chrysos or Chrysus. (and this name in itself, quite obviously cognate with Christ seems that it might be related to the Krosos of Egyptian myth).

Whether or not Napoleon, Caesar & Alexander were real or not (I tend to the view that none of them were) the fact is that the things that they were alleged to have done and the things that they were alleged to have said all make them somewhat ‘larger than life’ or more to the point completely unbelievable. They are historical inventions, nothing more and nothing less. For Alexander our sources for him are at least 150 years or more after his death, for Caesar there are many who say that his initials hint at something even more ‘otherworldly’ and numismatics, for one, has a hard time justifying his existence in any timeline. Finally Napoleon was just a little too much like maybe a new god, maybe N’Apollon? (Apollo for those slow ones down the back). He also, after having stolen the god of the sun’s mantle, had one of his main battles against Nel Sun. A new son of god (this works in 5th C Greek too). Sheesh.

Also he never sat for his most iconic painting as he crossed the Alps Carthaginian like (except sans Elephants) and soldiers in his army were frequently disappointed when he didn’t turn up to chat at the last minute. He put the jacks (off) into Ajaccio.

So when you say this about the upcoming movie on Napoleon;

“The Ridley Scott trailer starting Joaquin Phoenix looks great. Oddly enough prior to this I had no clue how impressive of a military commander he was. 30+ battles won 17 against impossible odds all way more than Julius Cesar or Alexander the Great.”

The level of bullshit is thrice.

Invented Charlemagne

Invented Napoleon

Invented the internet

Invented Paypal

Invented blackness

Invented?

P.S. I will add links to the other images later (after I’ve returned from my coffee - it is a beautiful day here) for those who are not getting the reference. For now only the last one has a link.

I’m used to censorship so I’m not surprised. In fact the idea that I would be free of censorship is absurd to me. Every single platform that I’ve spent any time on has eventually banned me. For what? You’d think that I’d be able to challenge the historical record of Sparta? To compare vaguely an arrogant Twitter user to the intolerant woke of whose tweets I was referring to remain up? To make a statement of truth regarding a companys shareholdings on LinkedIn? No, none of these things are approved. I cause heart palpitations whereever I venture it seems.

So for the record, as I’m likely to be banned from here as well, Christianity is an invention of Rome and the Jewish religion an invention of the Ancient Greeks. Both religions are traceable to the Ancient Greek canon even if they’ve been ideologically recomposed. Jesus was reborn, because he was Apollo who disappeared for a while because he was performing a different function than previously. Apollo was not even Greek really, more Trojan. The Trojans are disparaged, but read Homer and you’ll easily see that they were more democratic than the Greeks. In fact if you were to ask me Homer had more an attachment to them than the multiple Greek tribes of his Iliad. And Iasos a kind of Trojan town (and sounds like….) had Latin gold obviously, something the Pope does not like you mentioning. I would be a liar (ha) if I said that you couldn’t find this in the sevens. In turn Islam is probably an invention of the Persians (I’m not certain on this one) but isn’t it odd that this coin of King Offa looks to have some sort of prototype Arabic inscription almost as someone is twisting (maybe Greek) letters around. And if you still believe in Alexander the Great or Hoplites well good for you. Were you also aware that Napoleon failed to show for the sitting of his most famous portrait and that this should be no surprise for anyone versed in his story? That Nel/sun and Na/apoleon are somewhat etymologically similar in their denial albeit of different languages? That the Dark Ages is not a reference to those who experienced them but to our ability to see into them and that they’re dark for very good reason. So don’t look too closely at Charlemagne or he might disappear. And the Normans turned up on the British shores with ready to assemble (i..e Ikea) castles on boats with more horses than men and without the ability to not topple into the channel as a result. Their crossing was truly a miracle and that they still had room for soldiers even more so.

And yes there’s a new religion in the background now too, god knows what idiocy is involved this time but one can guess. Because you see if you go back to the Ancient Greeks religion, it was still tied to the elements. To wind, to wine, hunting, the seas, the sun and to our natures. To women, to men, to children. I’ll say that again, to women, to men, to children. The current religions are tied to a vengeful god whose name used to be Zeus and who was the most unpleasant of the 12 Olympian gods. He seems now to want everything in his own image, even women. And that one vengeful god stuff justifies capitalism, our removal from nature. The current Covid-19 paradigm recognizes this problem but doubles down obscenely nevertheless. There will be nature reserves and giant prison camps which we currently call cities. You will not be able to travel to those nature reserves and your life in the city will be as a slave. Digital currencies will decide what you can purchase, if you show any signs of rattiness ‘medicines’ will be adminstered remotely. Zeus in other words is out of control. This is the end game and our choice is now to live or to die. This choice has been given to us by those already dead.

I find it strange that substack, in this world of extreme censorship, is as relatively free as it is. It’s almost as if we’re being corralled here. Don’t let anybody whip you.