IV. The wandering super-ethnos; a superb look at the formation of the Jews and the Christians, also focusing on Bible adaptations, and leaving off with the Khazars.
Only King David (1004-965) achieved decisive success and took Jerusalem, where his son Solomon built a temple. But after Solomon's death, his kingdom split in two (nadolom), THERE WAS NO 'KING' DAVID, NO SOLOMONIC EMPIRE, HIS TEMPLE WAS VERY VERY TINY AND NO UNITED KINGDOM TO SPLIT IN TWO
I completely agree that biblical mythology is a fantasy. I agree that stories of David and Solomon are B.S. Gumilev wrote this in the 1980's, but I feel he also doubted everything about the biblical sources. He hits the nail on so many other arguments and tears down standard rhetoric. I read this section as making his point, without offending any "true believers".
What he is saying is not contingent on if there was a Solomon, or if not. That is my understanding of it.
Agree. The irony is this - without ancestors of the 'Judeans' being allowed back to 'Jerusalem' as Persian officials, managing a small but key imperial fortress, I wonder what would have happened to the small vassal state of Yehud ...Babylon would have probably been the 'new Jerusalem'. Zionists have a lot to thank modern day Iran for!!
All of this is fiction. There is absolutely no archaeological remain of the Jews having been in Palestine in that period. The Jews were never in Egypt. The Egyptians were excellent at keeping records. There was no Exodus from Egypt or the 40 years in Sinai. The "Promised Land" was not Palestine. It was a desert at that time. It had been under Egyptian control but the Egyptians abandoned it when it turned dry.
The reality is that the Jews were in Yemen. Yemen was a vassal of Babylon. Some tribes were Jewish and others were pagan. Yemen was fertile as the numerous dams and canals prove. Yemen had fortresses with walls which Palestine never had (i.e. Jericho). The Yemenis raided the camel trains to Petra - where some trains went to Damascus and others to Cairo. Nebuchadnezzar sent an army to punish them. The Yemenis were taken to Babylon as slaves.
Later, the Persian king Cyrus the Great liberated the Yemenis. Some returned to Yemen and others went to Palestine.
The geography of the west coast of today's Saudi Arabia matches that of the Bible. The names of the places also correspond. However, the Saudis have assiduously destroyed these ancient remains for obvious geopolitical reasons.
I hardly need mention that Ashkenazi Jews - Ben Gurion, Netanyahu, Nuland, Blinken, Soros etc. - have nothing to do with the Ancient Hebrews. The real descendents of the Jews of the time of Jesus are today's unfortunate Palestinians.
Only King David (1004-965) achieved decisive success and took Jerusalem, where his son Solomon built a temple. But after Solomon's death, his kingdom split in two (nadolom), THERE WAS NO 'KING' DAVID, NO SOLOMONIC EMPIRE, HIS TEMPLE WAS VERY VERY TINY AND NO UNITED KINGDOM TO SPLIT IN TWO
I completely agree that biblical mythology is a fantasy. I agree that stories of David and Solomon are B.S. Gumilev wrote this in the 1980's, but I feel he also doubted everything about the biblical sources. He hits the nail on so many other arguments and tears down standard rhetoric. I read this section as making his point, without offending any "true believers".
What he is saying is not contingent on if there was a Solomon, or if not. That is my understanding of it.
Thanks for weighing in.
.
Agree. The irony is this - without ancestors of the 'Judeans' being allowed back to 'Jerusalem' as Persian officials, managing a small but key imperial fortress, I wonder what would have happened to the small vassal state of Yehud ...Babylon would have probably been the 'new Jerusalem'. Zionists have a lot to thank modern day Iran for!!
𝟱𝟴𝟲 𝗕𝗖 𝗝𝗲𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗯𝘆𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗲𝗯𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘇𝘇𝗮𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗮𝗯𝘆𝗹𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮), 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀.
All of this is fiction. There is absolutely no archaeological remain of the Jews having been in Palestine in that period. The Jews were never in Egypt. The Egyptians were excellent at keeping records. There was no Exodus from Egypt or the 40 years in Sinai. The "Promised Land" was not Palestine. It was a desert at that time. It had been under Egyptian control but the Egyptians abandoned it when it turned dry.
The reality is that the Jews were in Yemen. Yemen was a vassal of Babylon. Some tribes were Jewish and others were pagan. Yemen was fertile as the numerous dams and canals prove. Yemen had fortresses with walls which Palestine never had (i.e. Jericho). The Yemenis raided the camel trains to Petra - where some trains went to Damascus and others to Cairo. Nebuchadnezzar sent an army to punish them. The Yemenis were taken to Babylon as slaves.
Later, the Persian king Cyrus the Great liberated the Yemenis. Some returned to Yemen and others went to Palestine.
The geography of the west coast of today's Saudi Arabia matches that of the Bible. The names of the places also correspond. However, the Saudis have assiduously destroyed these ancient remains for obvious geopolitical reasons.
I hardly need mention that Ashkenazi Jews - Ben Gurion, Netanyahu, Nuland, Blinken, Soros etc. - have nothing to do with the Ancient Hebrews. The real descendents of the Jews of the time of Jesus are today's unfortunate Palestinians.
𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗼𝗵 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀
https://ibb.co/z24MNhZ
<IMG SRC="https://ibb.co/z24MNhZ">