OT series takeaways - so far

[Jerry Russell]

So here's an article for you...

https://medium.com/@kurtcagle/jesus-christ-phoenician-fdc26cb2fac4

The case for red haired Phoenicians is not strong, but not necessarily out of the question either.

I’ve long been fascinated by red hair. There were two dominant waves of Indo-Europeans that could draw their origins from early Persians. The first wave, which went north and east around the Black Sea, would eventually end up populating most of central Europe all the way to Russia (with one big exception around the Volga river) and would end up in Y-Haplogroup R1a. They would have largely missed the Hittite populations. The second group of Persians would go almost due West, through the Hittite and Canaanite populations. It’s unclear whether the Hittites originally had red hair, though they were known to have blonde hair (the blonde Helen of Troy, a Hittite city, comes to mind), but the aboriginal Phoenicians may have had the MC1R mutation.

There’s a very curious phenomenon that affects hair color: at 45° N Latitude, hair color begins to lighten in response to lower amounts of ultraviolet radiation. Hair that is normally very dark becomes lighter shade of browns and eventually blonde. If the MC1R mutation exists as a dual recessive trait, then it appears red instead.

R1b is found in greatest concentration in a few places — Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England (stronger in the West than the East), Portugal, Spain and southern Italy, Romania, in the Volga … and Lebanon and with Ashkenazi Jews. Given the close proximity (and shared history) of Canaan and Israel, it is very likely that the Jews of Galilee especially frequently traveled on Phoenician ships, settled into Phoenician enclaves (or vice versa) and took Phoenician spouses. By the 11th century AD, Ashkenazi Jews made up only 3% of the worldwide population of Jews, and they were concentrated in Sicily, Spain and Tunisia, all areas associated with the Phoenicians. They have R1b markers, but also have markers for J2 Y-haplogroup, which most likely reflects the ancient Babylonian origins of both Phoenicians and Israelis. This hints that the MC1R mutation may be connected to in some way to both markers, though this is just speculation on the author’s part.
​

As indicated by the title: the author, Kurt Cagle, also speculates that Jesus Christ was a Phoenician, and that Christianity spread through Phoenician trading routes. Which is a little bit odd, considering that at least according to conventional wisdom, the Phoenician trading network had suffered a series of blows after its high point around 800BC, and was a mere shadow of its former self by the 1st century AD. Unlike 'Gerry' and his web host Miles Mathis, Cagle doesn't give any indication that he thinks that Alexander the Great, Hannibal or the Punic Wars were fake news.

The offhand mention that Ashkenazi were 3% of the worldwide population of Jews in the 11th century AD, is also odd. Unsourced, like everything else in the article.

 

[Jerry Russell]

In fact, I had recently asked the question of what was going on with them, in this regard

Such as, here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/the-baal-theory-of-christian-origins.2460/

 

[Richard Stanley]

As indicated by the title: the author, Kurt Cagle, also speculates that Jesus Christ was a Phoenician, and that Christianity spread through Phoenician trading routes. Which is a little bit odd, considering that at least according to conventional wisdom, the Phoenician trading network had suffered a series of blows after its high point around 800BC, and was a mere shadow of its former self by the 1st century AD.

That period of time is roughly compatible with the colonization period of the Italian peninsula by such as the Sabini and Latini tribes. Same for the later "Lost Tribes" forced migrations.

Unlike 'Gerry' and his web host Miles Mathis, Cagle doesn't give any indication that he thinks that Alexander the Great, Hannibal or the Punic Wars were fake news.

Back then they said "Phony News".

The offhand mention that Ashkenazi were 3% of the worldwide population of Jews in the 11th century AD, is also odd. Unsourced, like everything else in the article.

Yes, this is interesting. How to go from 3% to 90+%?

The references to the 'Roman' Ascanius may have to make me rethink the whole Khazar / Ashkenazi situation however. One one hand it makes the link back to the legendary Ashina, similar behaviorly to the Medes, even more attractive. And these very similar to the Royal Saka Scythians, i.e. top clans (not tribes). And all these consistent, it seems to me, with Ashe's Dawn Before the Dawn premise.

Imagine if Ahmose (or Iahmose) actually said he kicked out the 'Hyksos', but instead the whole 18th Dynasty line was infiltrated from that time, not just with Amenhotep III.

Miles Mathis made some comments about the Jewish descendency upon matrilineal lines in relation to the discussion about Solomon and his mother. Even more explicit is that David's mother is accounted as being the Moabite, Ruth. Various authors, such as Sand/Zand, The Invention of the Jewish People, and Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, discuss that this law of descent is adhered to rather loosely at times and that here there was, as exists today, conversion and intermarriage.

Gerry brings up the book, When Scotland Was Jewish, from Miles works, and the book does mention the Jews entering Britain in conjunction with the Norman Conquest, which preceded the Crusades in 'back to Canaan'. However, it seems that we are talking abut numerous waves of migration, just as is suggested more generally for migrations into Europe from the Fertile Crescent, over thousands of years (Fagan's The Long Summer).

In Part 4, Gerry brings up the trading aspect of the name Tamar, and this seems interesting in light of the metaphoric pun that Tamar's 'phony' prostitution conjures. A prostitute trades sex for some quid pro quo.

In any case, Gerry's thesis, building on Mathis's, is based upon the use of massive and constant deception, in the course of ever maintaining their trading advantages - and all while engaging in 'globalization' (as we know it yet today). This reminds me of Cyrus H. Gordon's premise that the OT is recording the guile that was considered morally apropos for the time. I suggest that it records the guile that exists under the double standard system still in play. This is consistent too with that of the psychological notion of Consciousness of Deceit, which should presuppose that humans, generally, are capable of deceit to a great extent. There would be little need for 'consciousness' of deceit unless this were indeed the case. The next question one might pose to this is whether such elite deceit is from nature or nurture, or both.

 

[Richard Stanley]

In looking at King David, I noticed the following 'storyboard' image from 3rd century CE Dura Europos, Syria. This is what Jews of that day thought King David and his retinue would look like. I believe that the Jews of Dura Europos are thought to have been the logistics providers for the Roman garrison there. How to reconcile these faces with such as Egyptian depictions of Phoenicians and other 'Semites'? Or the later traditional scary Easter depictions of Jews by the Catholic Church?

Samuel anointing David:

 

[Jerry Russell]

DNA from a 6th century BC Phoenician was found to belong to mitochondrial haplogroup U5b2cl, which is found today mostly in the British Isles, France and Germany. See:

https://phys.org/news/2016-05-ancient-dna-phoenician-carthage-european.html

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml

 

[Richard Stanley]

DNA from a 6th century BC Phoenician was found to belong to mitochondrial haplogroup U5b2cl, which is found today mostly in the British Isles, France and Germany.

It should also be noted that the mother of this individual was of this U5 haplogroup, while we don't know what the father had, because this is mitochondrial DNA. So is this an instance of a Phoenician mating with a shiksa, or is it more complicated than this?

The age of haplogroup U5 is uncertain at present. It could have arisen as recently as 35,000 years ago, or as early was 50,000 years ago. U5 appear to have been a major maternal lineage among the Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers (known as Cro-Magnons), and even the dominant lineage during the European Mesolithic. ... Overall, it appears that U5 arrived in Europe with the Gravettian tool makers, and that it particularly prospered from the end of the glacial period (from 11,700 years ago) until the arrival of Neolithic farmers from the Near East (between 8,500 and 6,000 years ago).
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml​

Those familiar with alternative pre-history are familiar with the association by some of Cro-Magnons (said to have larger skulls), and today's Basques and Berbers, with the Atlantis story. The latter which dates, if Plato was correct, to the time around the end of the last ice age.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Speaking of Atlantis, have you seen this?

Seems like the most plausible theory.

Although, one commenter says:
These videos are awesome, but I had to start writing down all of its flaws. Mostly the core problem is in the sources, for example: The ONLY source of information regarding Atlantis is Plato.Not Solon, not Kritias, not Egyptian priests. All of that is said by Plato, who is by the way famous for using alegories to describe philosophical issues of his time. Other problems include use of wrong measurements (the city itself is only about 5 kilometres in diametre and the island itself is much bigger. Plus the distance from the sea should not be more than 10 kilometres.) There are many flaws in this, I'm working on a video already (I do not do reaction videos, but this deserves it, in a good way). And I usually do analytic videos in Czech, but this motivates me to finally add English Anyway, great job on the videos, just the interpretation of sources and information in them is used in a wrong way, at least by my opinion. Personally, I would love you to discover the Atlantis, but my previous research on this topic has taught me to by careful and sceptical. (And sorry for my English, I have to work on that)

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, Sarge, we looked at this not too long ago: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/atlantis-hidden-in-plain-sight.2448/

It does seem possible that, as Jerry noted, that this site might likely be but a concentrically collapsed volcano cone.

I also like the notion of the collapsed tectonic plate that the Azores Islands sit upon. There is also an interesting site of concentric circles just inland on Spain's Rio Guadalquivir, just north of Cadiz. Probably not 'Atlantis', but it suggests a site that was meant to evoke same. And, it has evidence of ancient mining for metals in the region.

It's interesting how many Western-ophiles like to brag on the Classical Greeks as the founders of our civilization, yet those modest Greeks claimed they learned most all of it from the Egyptians and others. Somehow, Plato just happened to pull a time period out of his ass that generally accords with the melting of all that ice. Then we have Göbekli Tepe, which dates back to almost this same time, and just so happens to be only miles from Urfa (Edessa) and Harran, home of the Sabeans and the alleged start of Abraham's career.

I'm also reminded that I forgot to mention that Gerry's mentions of the common Phoenician use of offshore islands is felt to be that they also made use of such islands as secure warehouses for the goods that they would import and export. This in addition to using them as fortresses. Cadiz is a similar situation in fact.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Oh cool! Didn't see that. thanks

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Coincidentally (and a little spooky ), 'Gerry' is back with an update on the Phoenicians: http://mileswmathis.com/phoen5.pdf

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thx again Sarge.

From page 16:

... Apart from Joseph, none of the patriarchs’ stories are literally about finance, at least not in our current version.​

Actually, the patriarchal stories are about various financial arrangements:

• Abraham uses Sarah to financially bamboozle a prior pharaoh and then the Canaanite king Abimelech
• Jacob steals the birthright blessing of Abraham from his twin Esau
• Jacob and father-in-law Laban fool each other
• Judah convinces his brothers to sell Joseph into slavery
• A narrative ruse is employed to explain why the descendants of Ham will be slaves forever
• Another ruse is employed by Moses and Aaron to garner a load of gold taken from naughty Hebrews that had to executed
  
• Somehow the Egyptians let the 'Hebrews' walk off with a ton of loot during the Exodus

Gerry discusses the relationship between Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and he may indeed be correct about the 'financial' punning involved. But as well, the OT makes frequent use of inverting the traditional order of sons as to what they inherit from the father (even with Jacob and Esau at their birth). Some feel that this was meant to reflect the similar manner in which lowly and 'young' Israel rose up between its powerful 'brother' nation/empires. Whatever the case, this particular inversion of norms seems fitting with the near complete cultural inversion in the making of Judaism in the first place, via the 613 Mosaic laws. As such these inversions seem all part of one synthetic piece, the Mosaic laws, as constituted and stated, would not have needed Moses, or God, to provide them had the Hebrews been following them in the first place. They were mostly normative Canaanites to begin with.

Gerry talks about the Levites, and here should kept in mind how upon the completion of the Conquest, the Levites were placed in administrative control over the 48 largest cities thoughout the 12 tribal areas, including Judea. The tribe of Levi was thus accorded no respective tribal territory, and the number of 12 was maintained by dividing the tribe of Joseph between his two sons.

Even if all of those stories are all figurative and metaphorical, this was the essential methodology used during the Norman Conquest, where Norman 'lords' were placed in their feudal domains. The American colonies were established along similar lines, but this time the number 13 was used. The ultimate capitol was established in the 'Judea' of the colonies, the Catholic colony of Mary-land. The typology is the same, as the Judeans were not liked by the Israelites, just as the Protestants colonists distrusted the Catholics. And similarly, by hook or crook, the Judeans and Catholics have come out on top over their respective 'buddies'.

 

[Jerry Russell]

In the conclusion of Part 3, 'Gerry' wrote:

I hope... that you still believe in whatever you believed before, and that you got some new insights... nonetheless.​

​

An oddly kind and realistic benediction. In my case, it fits rather well.

I still believe that Judaism, at its inception, was a front operation created by the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians. Egypt and Assyria, the major regional powers, are attested archaeologically at least 1000 years before the Phoenicians. At the time of the Amarna Letters, which is at or shortly before the time of Moses in our account, the major Phoenician cities of the Levant were Egyptian vassals. The Phoenician governors were writing nervously to Pharaoh, soliciting help against the approaching 'Habiru' raiders.

Phoenician cities were not able to act independently of Egypt until after the advent of the Sea Peoples and the Bronze Age Collapse. By that time, Israel and Judah existed as distinct geographical entities to the south of Phoenicia. They were, moreover, highly distinct from a doctrinal standpoint. The Jews were called upon to reject polytheism, to foreswear idols, and specifically to reject the Phoenician god Baal. Furthermore, at least according to their foundation myth, the Israelites had established their beachhead in the Levant in a bloody war of conquest against Canaanites similar to the Phoenicians.

So I don't think it's reasonable to treat the Phoenicians as fundamentally equivalent to Jews, even though there are strong cultural & linguistic ties between them. Phoenicia retained its distinctive polytheistic religion, with some evolutionary changes of course, from the first emergence of its existence as an independent entity, up until its official termination at the fall of Carthage.

Regarding the contentions that Alexander the Great's conquests and the Punic wars were both fake, stage-managed spectacles under Phoenician management, I'm withholding judgment for the moment. It seems to me that 'Gerry' is arguing mostly from incredulity. And yet I have to agree, that the circumstances do seem suspicious. If the thesis is correct, it would mean that Greece of the Hellenistic era, as well as Rome, were both Phoenician fronts. And perhaps Judaism was also ultimately subsumed into this neo-Phoenician empire -- but only after the creation of Christianity as the successor to Phoenician religion and culture, and placing Judaism into the role of Christianity's eternal enemy, just as Yahweh was Baal's eternal enemy.

I've bought myself a copy of a recent book about this topic: In Search of the Phoenicians, by Josephine Quinn. I'll report back when I've had a chance to look through it.

 

[Richard Stanley]

In the conclusion of Part 3, 'Gerry' wrote:

I hope... that you still believe in whatever you believed before, and that you got some new insights... nonetheless.​

Shouldn't the first part depend upon just what exactly you believed in before? And, possibly, then what's the point in writing such a new and different interpretation?

Yes, I agree with you Jerry, that the Egyptians still appear to be the dominant influence in the Yahud project's foundations. But, then at some point influence seems to shift to the Persians, of whom Cyrus seems to have been helped to power by the Medes. But it is hard to separate out the influence of the Phoenicians with their vast trading empire, going in all directions.

The new monotheism of Israel, which we presented the latter as a synthetic contrivance, is part of the evolution of religion as we discussed happening with such as McEvilley. These quantum evolutions of religions seem to parallel the gradual coalescence of kingdoms into expanding 'empires', where fewer gods is less confusing and enables more conformance. As such, if the thesis that the elites of most all germane regions are generally cooperative, being related and in communication, then it seems likely that elite Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, ..., and thus would understand the necessary nature of the phenomenon in its functional relationship to 'globalization'. Given peoples' reluctance to abandon their mother cultures Judaism was thus created as the ever irritating grain of sand in the oyster to form the pearl of Western Civilization.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I've bought myself a copy of a recent book about this topic: In Search of the Phoenicians, by Josephine Quinn. I'll report back when I've had a chance to look through it.

Unfortunately, there's not much in this book that's relevant to the "Ancient Spooks" series from the Miles Mathis website. But, here's my summary FWIW.

Quinn's book quickly and clearly acknowledges her ideological motivation. She is generally opposed to ethnic nationalist movements, and feels that they typically are based on historical, genetic & cultural myths and oversimplifications. She notes that a strain of modern Lebanese nationalism is based on a romanticized notion of Lebanese descent from ancient Phoenician mariners. Her book is basically a systematic attempt to undermine this Phoenician-based Lebanese national identity.

The archaeological evidence consists of about 10,000 inscriptions, as well as pottery, structural remnants and other artifacts generally recognized as "Phoenician". Quinn argues that the individuals named in these inscriptions almost never self-identify as 'Phoenician' or 'Canaanite', but rather they describe themselves in terms of their city of origin, or their family. She goes through the relatively rare examples and evidences to the contrary, and argues that they should be disregarded; although there are enough of these counter-examples that I can imagine that a lively academic debate might ensue. I don't have any sense as to whether Quinn is challenging an academic consensus here, or whether she's preaching to the choir, or how the debate might be shifting.

Quinn also addresses the descriptions of "Phoenicians" in classical Greek, Roman and other ancient sources. She finds similarly in these sources, that 'Phoenicia' is not described as a nation or people in the same way as, say, Greeks, Romans, Persians or Israelites. Again, Quinn says, the "Phoenicians" are identified first and foremost as belonging to a particular city, each with its own king or ruler. And again, there are enough counter-examples, treated in exhaustive detail, that it's easy to imagine that the controversy is not over.

The book also reviews cultural artifacts, finding that the "Phoenicians" tended to borrow extensively from neighboring inland cultures across their far-flung realm, as well as from other Phoenician cities. And yet, each Phoenician hub city maintained its own distinctive culture as well. Each city had its own gods, as well as sharing a general Phoenician pantheon.

Quinn did show that the Phoenicians could be distinguished from Israelites, most importantly on the basis that the Phoenicians most definitely did practice human infant sacrifice, which the Israelites abhorred. She also indicated that Ugarit is generally not considered a Phoenician city, although I wasn't so sure what the basis was for this distinction.

Of course, not having any substantive knowledge basis to disagree, I found Quinn's arguments generally persuasive. At any rate, I see no reason to doubt that there's a profound lack of evidence that the Phoenicians were ever a single unified people, ruled and taxed by a single central government, state or king. Or to put it another way -- there's no evidence that there ever was a Phoenician empire in the sense that Egypt, Rome, or Persia existed as empires.

But of course, that's exactly what you would expect if 'Gerry' and the "Ancient Spooks" series are correct. Of course the Hidden Ruler wouldn't leave any tangible evidence of his own power and influence. Plausible deniability is an essential aspect of the theory. But I do find myself questioning if the theory can be considered 'scientific' if there seems to be no way to falsify it.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The archaeological evidence consists of about 10,000 inscriptions, as well as pottery, structural remnants and other artifacts generally recognized as "Phoenician". Quinn argues that the individuals named in these inscriptions almost never self-identify as 'Phoenician' or 'Canaanite', but rather they describe themselves in terms of their city of origin, or their family. She goes through the relatively rare examples and evidences to the contrary, and argues that they should be disregarded; although there are enough of these counter-examples that I can imagine that a lively academic debate might ensue. I don't have any sense as to whether Quinn is challenging an academic consensus here, or whether she's preaching to the choir, or how the debate might be shifting.

Quinn also addresses the descriptions of "Phoenicians" in classical Greek, Roman and other ancient sources. She finds similarly in these sources, that 'Phoenicia' is not described as a nation or people in the same way as, say, Greeks, Romans, Persians or Israelites. Again, Quinn says, the "Phoenicians" are identified first and foremost as belonging to a particular city, each with its own king or ruler. And again, there are enough counter-examples, treated in exhaustive detail, that it's easy to imagine that the controversy is not over.

Except for maybe a later Roman, or perhaps even a Hebrew, perspective I'm guessing that one could make the same claim for the 'Greeks' as for the Phoencians - as to their self-identifications. So-called (greater) Greece was a collection of city-state polities only occasionally assembled in various alliances. Rome was founded on just such a city-state basis, and was quite chauvinistic and guarded about who could be considered a 'Roman', to the extent in perhaps helping in the eventual de jure downfall of (western) imperial Rome proper.

Does Quinn's thesis about the 'Phoenician / Canaanite polity even impact the claims of 'Gerry' one way or the other? I think it is commonly agreed that the 'Phoenicians' collectively were long distance merchants par excellence, and one way or the other the Romans had to deal with their western outpost of Carthage. And even acknowledging the role of Dido in their foundational narrative.

Quinn's claim about Ugarit seems strange. As far as I know, they spoke Semitic and had the same general pantheon.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'm guessing that one could make the same claim for the 'Greeks' as for the Phoencians - as to their self-identifications.

Quinn basically agrees with this, although she says that the Greeks did have some collective identity as a result of a shared literary culture, exemplified by works such as Homer. It's generally assumed that the Phoenicians must have had a similar shared literature, written on parchment or papyrus which has long since decayed or been destroyed. But, Quinn points out that there's no evidence that any such Phoenician literature ever existed. There are no mentions, much less quotations, of any Phoenician literary, historical or religious works or authors in anything written by any contemporary Greek, Hebrew or Latin author.

Does Quinn's thesis about the 'Phoenician / Canaanite polity even impact the claims of 'Gerry' one way or the other?

I was hoping perhaps to find some evidence in favor, but I didn't see any.

Quinn's claim about Ugarit seems strange.

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit tends to support Quinn's suggestion that scholars don't think of Ugarit as Phoenician. But, the similarities look very strong to me. This may be simply a matter of scholarly convention. Other Phoenician cities have been well known since antiquity because of references in various Greek & Roman authors, whereas Ugarit seems to have been completely forgotten until its rediscovery by modern archaeology.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Quinn basically agrees with this, although she says that the Greeks did have some collective identity as a result of a shared literary culture, exemplified by works such as Homer. It's generally assumed that the Phoenicians must have had a similar shared literature, written on parchment or papyrus which has long since decayed or been destroyed. But, Quinn points out that there's no evidence that any such Phoenician literature ever existed. There are no mentions, much less quotations, of any Phoenician literary, historical or religious works or authors in anything written by any contemporary Greek, Hebrew or Latin author.

I'm guessing it took centuries for the post-Mycenaean 'Greeks' to develop such a sense of collective identity. And the uniting cultural edifice was indeed the Homeric works, just as the Bible is the central cultural spine of modern Western culture. See more below.

Perhaps discounting Ugarit as part of the Phoenician / Canaanite polity, and thus its three literary works (the Legends of Keret and Danel, and the Ba'al Cycle) allows a profitable insulation for continuing the profitable and cynical false dialectic of Gentile and Judaic cultures?

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit tends to support Quinn's suggestion that scholars don't think of Ugarit as Phoenician.

Texts in the Ugaritic language, a Canaanite tongue, may provide an important clue. The language was discovered by French archaeologists in 1928, and known only from texts found in the lost city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), Syria.[15] Ugaritic has been used by scholars of the Old Testament to clarify Biblical Hebrew texts and has revealed ways in which ancient Israelite culture finds parallels in the neighboring cultures.[15] Ugaritic was "the greatest literary discovery from antiquity since the deciphering of the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform."[16] Literary texts discovered at Ugarit include the Aqhat Epic (or Legend of Danel) — all revealing a Canaanite religion. According to Edward L. Greenstein, a distinguished professor at Bar-Ilan University, Ugaritic texts solved the biblical puzzle of the anachronism of Ezekiel mentioning Daniel at Ezekiel 14:13-16; it is because in both Ugaritic and the Ancient Hebrew texts, it is correctly Danel -- the yod is missing in the originals.[15] ​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danel​

I guess it begs the question of what distinguishes Canaanite from Phoenician (and 'Israelite). Ugaritic texts discuss Ba'al, El (Ba'al's heavenly father), and such as Yam the sea god. The latter reduced from a god to the literal name for the 'sea' in Judaism's Hebrew dialect of Canaanite.

Given Ugarit's premium location at the entrance to the trade routes leading to and from Mesopotamia, and that the Ugarit population seems to have been Amoritic, common with greater Mesopotamia, one might wonder if Ugarit was something like a first among equals amongst fellow Canaanite / Phoenicians. Given its proximity to Hatti, and sometimes inside Hatti's sphere of influence, it is understandable that there would be some 'cosmopolitan' differences between Ugarit and the other cities.

The Amorites are also mentioned in the Bible as inhabitants of Canaan both before and after the conquest of the land under Joshua. ​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites​

Cyrus H. Gordon linked the name of Kret (or Keret), via the Epic or Legend of Keret, to the island of Crete and various Semitic influences there. And he also linked this literary work to influencing similar epic motifs in Homer's Iliad and in Genesis.

Cyrus H. Gordon argued, "It anticipates the Helen-of-Troy motif in the Iliad and Genesis, thus bridging the gap between the two literatures."[17] ​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Keret​

I bring up such as Gordon's (Greek - Hebrew) linkages, like Moses Hadas's, as bolstering the speculations of such as 'Phoenician' influence far beyond that typically allowed in the mainstream 'Gentile' < Classical Greek equation. Even the very name 'Europe' is part of this. And, incidentally, the presence of such as human/child sacrifice into Europe, as being evidence of general early Semitic (Ba'al) influence, and not specifically Hebrew/Jewish.

And to beat a dead Trojan Horse, the Homeric works were the literal 'bible' for the the Greco-Roman world until the emergence of the Flavian Christian replacement, made official by Flavius Constantine the Great, aka OG Flava Flav.

Other Phoenician cities have been well known since antiquity because of references in various Greek & Roman authors, whereas Ugarit seems to have been completely forgotten until its rediscovery by modern archaeology.

Ugarit seems to have been destroyed in the general period of the so-called Sea Peoples, at the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. Many cities of the various affected Mediterranean societies underwent their respective resettlement hiatuses, but Ugarit was not resettled, perhaps for some political reason?

According to the narrative account provided, of this same transitional period we also have Samson, the Danite 'judge' and 'Nazarite'. Like the original 'Danel', Samson is a culture hero. Danel is not accorded as being wise or righteous, and neither was Samson, nor Donald Trump - today's 'Samson'. The more famous 'Daniel', in the eponymous biblical book, is accorded prophecies which such as the evangelicals (and even me) use to claim as God's geopolitical game plan discussing the rise and fall of Persia onwards, whoever 'God' is, that is.

And so the narrative of Samson and Trump, at least, conform faily well to the hypothesis advanced by Gerry and Miles Mathis about 'Western' origins from such as Mesopotamia (and Egypt). Trump especially so as he is a mercantile huckster par excellence, the sneaky grandson of sneaky 'Bavarian' immigrants.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

A new post on Miles' website with related content:
The Wikipedia page on piracy gives you a lot of clues, if you know what to look for. One of the biggest clues are these two sentences, conspicuously stuck right next to each other:
The earliest documented instances of piracy are the exploits of the Sea Peoples who threatened the ships sailing in the Aegean and Mediterranean waters in the 14th century BC. In classical antiquity, the Phoenicians, Illyrians and Tyrrhenians were known as pirates.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I agree with Miles Mathis's comment to "Gerry"'s earlier article, that the identification of the "Sea Peoples" with the "Phoenicians" is very suspicious, and deserves further research. But, I notice that Wikipedia lists nine theories about the origins of the Sea Peoples, including Philistines, Minoans, Trojans, Mycenaeans, or Italians, but not including Phoenicians. And, chronological revisionists starting with Immanuel Velikovsky have identified the Sea Peoples as time-shifted Persians.

While we're talking about suspicious coincidences and mysterious patterns, have you noticed that Mathis has now published a second pseudonymous, anonymous author at his website? And that in both cases, the anonymous author has a writing style that strongly resembles Mathis's own? Not to mention, the same anti-semitic perspective, assuming in every case that whoever is not Jewish must in fact be "crypto-Jewish"? I noticed that one of the names on his list of supposedly Jewish pirates was convicted on the sole basis of his last name, "Russell". And I know for a fact, from personal experience, that there are some Russells who are not Jewish.

Is it possible that "Gerry" and "Long John Silverman" are both, in fact, pseudonyms of Miles Mathis? Not that it even matters, except as to pose the puzzle of why Mathis would want to propound multiple instances of himself.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I agree with Miles Mathis's comment to "Gerry"'s earlier article, that the identification of the "Sea Peoples" with the "Phoenicians" is very suspicious, and deserves further research.

Remember Ralph Ellis's take in having the Sea Peoples generally having originated from the western Mediterranean, and that they seem to have been motivated by revenge. And/or, I say that they also may have been put up to it, say for geopolitical purposes. This as part of the fin de siecle of the Late Bronze Age. One tribe ends up becoming the Biblical Philistines, another the Biblical Danites (from the Mycenaean Danoi), and yet another ending up residing in the Nile delta with the recorded 'permisssion' of the Egyptians.

Is it possible that "Gerry" and "Long John Silverman" are both, in fact, pseudonyms of Miles Mathis? Not that it even matters, except as to pose the puzzle of why Mathis would want to propound multiple instances of himself.

I agree that, minimally at least, LJS is indeed likely Mathis. And rather sardonic that he (or whoever) would choose the alias moniker of a pirate himself, albeit it gave him the opportunity to transmute mere 'Silver' into 'Silverman'. In any case, it seems this makes for a poor attempt to protect from charges of 'anti-Semitism'.

The notion that the 'Semitic' Phoenicians might have a Persian (Aryan > Iran) origin gets even more into the 'identity' issue, and again, one must be reminded of such as Shendge's work, The Language of the Harrapans. This where she discusses the intense interactions of the Semites of the day with the 'Arya', as discussed in the Vedas. The dialectic dynamic, and its actual 'apocalyptic' ending of the Indus Valley Culture, with actual great rivers changing course and within my millennial construct. And we find this curious confusion with names popping into the origins of the Abrahamic narrative, the names Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar 'coincidentally' near identical to the three great rivers destroyed or altered by the IVC conflict with Indra.

The Persian Avestas are a moral inversion of the Indian Vedas, on a similar scale to the Mosaic cultural inversion with the latter's 613 laws. And we must remember the Levirate marriage contract of Abraham's day, a cultural practice that traces back to 'Aryan' cultures, and iran-ically [sic] that Judah founded his tribe of 'Jews' upon his foiled attempts avoid fulfilling this legal contract with his daughter-in-law, Tamar.

Mathis and LJS, like many before, characterize a 'Jewish' 'war' (using marriage and money) against the aristocracy, which most similar conclude that the latter are elite 'Gentiles', a term which I claim is equally as deceptive and synthetic as the term' Jew'. Barbiero claims that the Euro aristocracy was supplanted via marriage and such long, long before, with the alliance between the Hasmonean (Maccabee) extended family of Josephus with the Flavians. I claim this all started even longer before, and it all distills down to the long running desires of a certain elite to extend their privileges, wealth, and power over time. Creating deceptive religio-cultural narratives, including the NT (where so-called 'gentiles' worship a 'Jew') is all part and parcel of the modus operandi. The deception is still playing out today as witnessed by the 'current' university admittance scam being exposed, just as small part of the crypto-class system submerged within modern 'democratic' nation-states.

As I've discussed before, I suspect that the real genetic players will turn out to be such as the descendants of the Royal Saka, similar to Geoffrey Ashe's description of such as the "Seven Mystique" (Seven < Saba < Sabean). And that such as these 'Arya' (as claimed by Nicolas DeVere) and their various elite collusionists along the way created the fake reality of 'Jews' and 'Gentiles', where the deluded become attached to their assigned 'identity' akin to mass Stockholm Syndrome. Otherwise, the question is begged as to just why the poor bedeviled Euro-aristocracy has continued for so long to allow the 'Jews' to leverage them and to intermarry with them and ... The real answer is that found at the end of Genesis, where the subserviant relationship of Judah is described with that of Joseph and his son Ephraim, Joseph having colluded with pharaoh to enslave the people of Egypt, forming a feudal society, like found later in Europe, thanks to Christianity.

It all depends on how one wants, or is directed, to interpret their cultural narratives, and everyone insists on being the 'good guys'. Hence a 'good' Christian colonist of the New World reads his Bible and concludes that the hero Joseph was doing well by enslaving others. What could go wrong? Now we are still living with the legacy of this and the 'Christians' and others merely altered their interpretations for Political Correctness sake. But as always, there is ever the profit (for some few) in such delusions.