Limitations of archeology - unreliability of history - and - disorientation of sociology
Additional chapters:
   2 -   Epilogue (the first and last are... gods of nature)
   3 -   Questions by Dr. Miloš Abadžić
   4 -   Sinful Ahaziah as the witness
of the contemporary restructuring of
historical text in the semi-myth
HOME

Biblical events are historically ...
but the problem was existed because an actors were seen as as a non-sociological phenomenons
Although     BIBLICAL ACTORS       in the history they are written in       CAPITAL LETTERS
the religious philosophy first, and then the secular history,
both sought them among the lowest records

English         Serbian

Before reading see this list of names:

Elohims     Nefilims
   
Noah     Ham     Adam     Eve
Fu Xi = Fu Hsi = Paoxi Nepal Nüwa Kham Amdo Newa - Newa(h)

Terah (Serbian: Tara)       Abraham   Sarah (Serbian: Sara)       Shinar (Serbian: Senar)       Haran (from which Abraham moves)
Uttara Abhira Sura Sunar Haryana

Esau (Serbian: Isav)       Isaac (Serbian: Isak)       Jacob (Serbian: Jakov)       Joseph   (Arabic: Yusuf)       Izrael
Isuwa Kizzuwatna Quwe Isputahsu Arzawa

Jehovah(s)     Levites     Adonai(s)     Phoenicians (by history: the people who inhabiting Canaan)
Ahhiyawa    (English: Achaeans;
Serbian: Ahajci; Greek: Axaioi, Achaioi)
Luwi
.
Denyen(s)
(Serbian: Danajci; Greek Danaoi)
Phi-listines   (by biblical interpreters:
                    the people who inhabited southern Canaan)

S   -  Jesse (Eshai, Yishai)     DD   -  David     SLMN   -  Solomon
Esini Adad Nirari I Shalmaneser I

Rehoboam     Saul     GBH Gibeah     Ish-bosheth (Serbian: Ivostej)     KSH Kish     Uriah the Hittite
ruba'um (Assyr. prince / small ruler)
Tukulti-Ninurta I
Shattuara
 
HGB Hanigalbat
 
Wasashatta
 
KSH Kili-Teshup
 
(Serbijan: Urija Hetejin)
Urhi Teshub - Hati

Asher     (Serbian: Asir)       Nobah   (Serbian: Navav)       Manasseh (Serbian: Manasija)       Gad
Assyria   (Serbian: Asirija) Nineveh (Serbian: Niniva) Manishtushu Akkad   ( Sumerian: Agade )

Jericho       Ebal (Serbian: Eval)       Arba (Serbian: Arva)       Anakites (Serb: Enakimi )       Debir   (Serb: Davir)
Ariha (in Syria) Ebla Arwad Aynook Derbly (Tripoli in Lebanon)

Gideon  (Serb: Gedeon )       Jotham   (Serb: Jotam)                         Samson
Gudea ( 2144 - 2124 ) Utu-??? Samsun

Zebulon (Heb: Zavulun)       Isahar ( Issachar, Yissachar )       Naphtali (Nephthalim)   (Serb: Neftalim)
Zalpuwa ( Zalpa ) Hayasa Pamphylia

Simeon   (Serb: Simon)
and
Judah     (Serb: Juda)
Sam'al   (Hittite:)   Yadiya   (Aramaic: Ya'idi)

Ahaziah or Ochozias (Serbian:) Ohozija Jehosheba or Jehoshabeath (Serbian:) Josaveja
Uhha-Ziti                 Gassulawiya


Jesus (Serb.:) Isus Christ (Serb.:) Hrist Caesar instead Caesar Peter (wrong: "rock")
Shush(u)
   
cognitive level that characterizes "silence"
   
      Hry-sStA
(Egyptian:) Owner (Lord) of
knowledge of processes on soil,
in atmosphere & below ground
      Emperor's advisor
   
   
   
      Kepha (li-s)
(correctly: "head/chief")
from expression "cornerstone",
which symbolizes the hydrogen

sadducees pharisees
scientists / expert administration     (from: "caducei/caduceus", ie. stick of wisdom)         nobility     (from Aramaic: "prs/prsh" = horsemen)


Thanks!

It is enough ...
Further, it does not matter did you'll will read something here or anywhere...

 

And it is only my duty to say a some tidbits about this topic... So:

    The vanity is not an invention of today's sociology. When the "first emperor of China" (260-210 BC) concluded that according to successes he had overcome the first Three Sovereigns (masters), and according to virtues he surpassed the Five mythical Emperors, in the desire to secure the achievements of new modern times in relation to the primitive social-political past , the 213th BC. he has been issued a decree by which: every
"who dares to talk about the Book of Songs or about the Classic of History will be publicly executed on the square",
and "who criticizing the present through the past will be executed with all family members".
Or, to be historically accurate, it was been the proposal of the minister Li Si, who although he managed to send in the suicide the emperor's son Fusu, own ingenuity finally he was paid according own personal invention of the method for execution with the Five pains.
    What I wanted to say:
Simply, as long is redraw, the history can not teach us anything, and people overestimate the power of its assessments in the current moment.


Elohims     Nefilims
   
Noah     Ham     Adam     Eve
Fu Xi = Fu Hsi = Paoxi Nepal Nüwa Kham Amdo Newa - Newa(h)

Let start first from the clear and simple facts:

ARCHAEOLOGY
HISTORY
SOCIOLOGY
It is clear that the archeology has no an artifacts about the tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because that the knowledge is public and general matter, then Adam would not steal this.     It is clear that the history has no records that also can be called authentic and detailed information, because first, such records were internal and confidential, and second, unclear for a classical members of society.     It is clear that for the sociology the easiest way it is to treat the human species such as plant or animal species, because the simplified evolutionary archetype it is potable reading with plenty of available artifacts, without a risky complications.

- However, after so much time, if something has been possible to realize it is that the story about Noah
    is essentially identical to the Chinese story about Nuwa.
- That what is much earlier should be clear, it is that the mentioned "genealogical" chains from the past are not genetically than cognitive-ideological.
- In regard with this, it should not be specially difficult to see that: the first remembered names are not personal,
    but mostly they are a terms for nations.

Forth ...
- Although Christian ideology did not been resourceful in the geographical location of Bible places, and although almost all of these locations overcrowded on the span of space around fortification of Aelia Capitolina, at least in the case of location of the Garden of Eden must have been clear that we must go to the east as far as to reach the place where from the one closed geographic area derived 4 large or significant rivers.
And, although the sources of rivers we have a multitude everywhere, the most characteristic case in this regard is the case of the "crystal" Mount Kailash, the holy area for several religions of the world.
There are the springs of, "lion" river (Indus), "horse" river (Brahmaputra), "peacock" river (Ghaghara) and "elephant" river (Sutlej). As far as I could to see the names on the maps in fact are obtained because of the terrain that is similar to these animals, and it seems to me that in the case of Hindus and Sutlej has been a replacement of a names, but this is irrelevant, because the elephant and the lion are figures (images) that overlap. Of course, this cartographic-satellite clarity was lost in time, and are considered that a word is about the similarity of the rivers and the characteristics of animals, because people must drawn some pseudo logical conclusion to explain itself some vague information.
- Hence, we could get a very solid locality of the upper garden, the arranged space, from there water is flowed to the lower gardens. In the Bible, of course, has been happened a simplification, and because of that all gardens are understood under term of one, and this is called "edenic" (Serbian: edemski) by Adam, what is quite predictable regard to the scarcity of information, although it is clear that the garden was not his but belonged to Elohims, ie. gods.
The trouble is that people are moving, and for now could not be certain bet on the area of Amdo as the undisputed territory of Adama, nor to south region of Kham as the undisputed territory of Ham, one of Noah's three sons, with the fact that: the sameness of Kham and Ham etymologically it is indisputable.
But it is not so important, because what is important for the story of Noah and the Garden it is that there has been a contentious situations between the players something larger than the classical people, ie. between Elohims, mentioned in the social rank of the gods, and the Nephilims who are cognitively somewhere between gods and people, because they are incurred by mixing of the people of gods and the classical people. And if we now go back to the oldest remembered populations in the Chinese information, to the 3 Sovereigns: Fu Xi, Nüwa, and Shennong, we can see that the oldest (older than Noah) Fu Xi =Fu Hsi = Paoxi (called Heavenly Sovereign who ruled 18 000 years, unlike the Earthly, who ruled 11,000 years and human, who reigned 45 600 years) actually is a term which in the Middle East with added prefix El (god, divine) it is: (El)ohi(m).
In addition, if we now go back to the area around the Garden of Mount Kailas, we can see that to the east there extends the Nepal state, and with good reason can be assumed that this was the term Nephil(im).
It is quite logical that Noah, that is: Nüwa, in many forms and events, he is much more present in the cultures of the East.
There is a great probability that in the case of Newa people, ie. Newa(h), now in Nepali Kathmandu Valley, and earlier in a much wider area, the word is about the people in the bible known as Eve (Serbian: Eva). As in some cases about the people of Noah, who somewhere is treated as a "wife", or in the latter case of Sara people, in the patriarchal world, when people were seen in terms of individuals, the more primitive accompanying people - they are usually treated in the form of women (as subordinate beings).

We could now play with the hypothesis that Cain (Serbian: Kain, Kajin) has to do with the terms of the Chin, Kachin, Kayah or Kayin, but this is still far from any sureness. Something there is more probability is in the case of Abel (Serbian: Avelj), ie. the population of land of Hav'ilah (Serbian: zemlja Evilska). If we compare the data from the Bible where it says that the river Fison flows around the country of Hav'ilah, where is gold that is good quality (pure), there is bdellium and precious onyx stone, at least we can understand the act of Cain, but the more important is now that we can compare this with the flow of the river Brahmaputra, which surrounds a considerable territory of land in which we have the famous golden dust of its tributary Subansiri River.

What happened next with Elohims here is irrelevant. For us is important to determine when occurred to the substitution of protectors, ie. when story came under the jurisdiction of Jehovahs.

Although, judging by the names of the people, it seems that among the sons of Japheth (Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras) are Khmers (Gomer) and Javanese (Javan). Since that the sons of Ham are: Cush, Mizraim (probably: Maharashtra), Phut and Canaan (in fact: Haryana) and that the sons of Cush (in fact: Kushwaha) are: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabtecah (Serbian:Savataka); it seems that this was an area of India.

Terah (Serbian: Tara)       Abraham   Sarah (Serbian: Sara)       Shinar (Serbian: Senar)       Haran (from which Abraham moves)
Uttara Abhira Sura Sunar Haryana

However, for us it is important that the Terah people pulled further to the west the population of Abraham, Lot, Sarah and Melchom. It is not certain that it was done spontaneously, and the bible has no information except the self-initiated Terah's decision.
According to own sacred custom, the originators of modern world history, in order to avoid archaeological blasphemy, they have lowered all heavenly carriages from all myths in the traces of the earth's dust, but since they still were too metal, they moved them closest to more modern times, so do not get: the periods of stagnations; or "god forbid": the retrogression of a craftsmen's thought. Hence it seems that Indians (the indigenous peoples of the America) of archaeological camps could, if not today but as tomorrow, read off yesterday's traces of events from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. As that they never heard what is the sky, and so do not know where is.
Anyway, what is there, in any case, there came time for
the importance of archaeological-historical data,
since that, at least by sequence of events, we are certainly closer to a more known epochs, but
simultaneously with the historical dating of myths it should be avoided historio-geography of religious institutions.

The most reliable mention of the biblical names it is located at the locality of Ebla (northwest Syria): Adamu, H’à-wa, Abarama, Ishma-el, Isûra-el, Ye-ru-sa-lu-um... If we asked them what they think where is the "Samaria" probably then it would be "Ras-Shamra" (right next to them on the west coast), or where it is most similar style of writing as in the Bible. Precisely, what would David Steinberg said:
"It is clear that Ugaritic and early biblical Hebrew poetry share a common literary tradition. They use the same poetic techniques and even share the same fixed pairing of words in parallelism."
Before that, I must remind all on the fact that the name Terah (Serbian: Tara) is found in the Indian Uttara, which unfortunately seems to mean "north/en", and it is in connection with the events after the wars in the Ramayana, which happened, for now most reliably told - once upon a time, while in western India about river Sarasvati we have so-called Abhira and Sura kingdoms. Since that in that time, as the Mahabharata says, the river was completely dried up in the desert, now we know why Abraham and Sarah are decided to start the undertaking of a voyage. Therefore, Abraham was led Sarah, behind own everywhere, recognizing kinship, but denying too closeness, that the hosts would not be scared of their joint powers. Since that in India, also we have, the mention of their unity name as the Surabhira country, hence perhaps in Bible renaming with giving of the two "a" instead of the one "a", because actually, the name should be SuraAbhira. In addition there was been a permutation from abhira in abrah, which in the Levant area it had a sense like "father of many." (Some say that in Sanskrit 'abhira' means 'shepherd', while some think that it means the 'fearless'.)
By order of the names we see that the Sura (Sarah) population was more numerous, and by the Bible may be easy to assume that it was more primitive population and it seemed easy to use. But whenever the hosts realized that Sura was has been under management of the Abhira, and that through Abhira both are under the influence (protection) of Achaeans, they would have lost the will for the use of Sura's human resources.

The project called Isra-el
In fact, what was the main stumbling block for the history and geography is the misconception of the project "Israel". Toward to this project people always was been approached from the perspective of Israel's people, for which was been important to get their fertile land, and not been pay attention that this project, which in fact never failed to be realized ideally, is the idea of Jehovahs for their personal needs, in all probability megalomaniac. If it is possible, it was supposed to be a protective corridor from the Red Sea to the Black Sea.
Of course, the precursor of the project Israel has begun in northern Asia Minor in the Levant, in the areas closest Achaeans' culture (Hittite: Ahhiyawa, in the Bible: YHWH, JHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah).
But first we must, for a moment, go back to the time of the tower in the country Shinar (Serbian: Senar) which is not, like as is usually assumed, in the area of Babylon, but, the towers of 'mixed languages' it was been at the crossroads of the Asiatic-Hindu-Asia Minor areas, in the northwest India, where are the people of goldsmiths: the Sunar, and where there is enough gold as an ideal conductor for telecommunications devices. Probably this tower was "too much" close to Elohims, and it is not impossible that by it the culture of Abraham came in the contact with the culture of Denyen (in the Bible Adonai).
Haran from where Abraham was moving: it is almost certain: Haryana.

Esau (Serbian: Isav)       Isaac (Serbian: Isak)       Jacob (Serbian: Jakov)       Joseph   (Arabic: Yusuf)       Izrael
Isuwa Kizzuwatna Quwe Isputahsu Arzawa

After lot of moving to the west, and to the south to Egypt, returning to the north, finally, the Abrahamic formations placed the two stable successors. So tell twins, of whom somewhat older and initially with more numerous formation, which was called Esau (Serbian: Isav), ie. Isuwa (Išuwa, Ishuwa).
The solace, for this older brother (hunter and husbandman), who will due to circumstances leave own birthright in favor of the junior, it will remain that his dwelling will be "the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above". Younger and more unstable, on the occasion of his "marriage", he had contacts with the even homeland of Abraham. And probably he has then attracted the formation of Hurrians.
His name was Isaac, ie. Kizzuwatna. In Serbian it is: Isak; and in the one of the Arab form: Yitzchok. For the existing text in the bible is otherwise characteristic that is often the ultimate form of the name of someone actor it is closer to the name of other actor from the same time. Therefore here the more complex name is approximated toward the simpler name. ( In Serbian: Isav and Isak. )
For now, it's hard to say with certainty where afterwards Jacob was been located (Serbian: Jakov), but the name of the one of the much later so-called Neo-Hittite states: Quwe it is probably been a reanimation of Jacob's territory. In any case, though, also from the later time, we find on the territory of Kizzuwatna the ruler whose name: Isputahsu (Išputahšu) is in fact the same as Joseph (Serbian: Josif; Arabic: Yusuf).
By the opinion of Dr. Ilya S. Yakubovich this is the Hittite form of name. And is currently hard to say how it sounded in Luwian (?) original, or in the form of Egyptian language.
But, however, the etymology persistently strengthens in the strikingly northern area than it is the Israel from the Judeo-Christian philosophy, and it is not unreasonable to assume that the term Izra(el) is the same as Arzawa. This is not quite sure, but it would be logical, because Israel as a geo-strategic project of the Achaeans it was the most important right next to their territory, with this that as their goal has always been that, if and when this is possible, it covers the Asia Minor and the whole Levant.. Since that the biblical commentators-historians did not know who is Jehovah, they could not even know what it is Israel, and also they did not know what are the tribes.

This corridor is supposed to have several important functions:
- forehand (on time) to stop the penetration of the great nations form the East
- to stop the domination of Egypt or of any nation, like the Hittites, on the Levant
- to suppress or at least limit the power of the Levant's coastal cities ("Phoenicians/Philistines")
    which are maritime rivals for Achaeans in the Mediterranean.
At the beginning of the realization of this project the biblical sources say that it is endangered because of the desire of Israelis to keep some of the vanquished nations in order to serve them for their needs.


Jehovah(s)     Levites     Adonai(s)     Phoenicians (by history: the people who inhabiting Canaan)
Ahhiyawa (English: Achaeans;
Serbian: Ahajci; Greek: Axaioi, Achaioi)
Luwi
.
Denyen(s)
(Serbian: Danajci; Greek Danaoi)
Phi-listines   (by biblical interpreters:
                    the people who inhabited southern Canaan)

Under this name in the Bible Jehovah are first mentioned at the time when Moses should explain to the Egyptian slaves with what kind of the master they shall to conclude agreement ie. covenant. As the explanation, they used their name which was known to all nations, ie. the name which found in the Hittite data in the form Ahhiyawa, because it is in fact an Egyptian name for the people who use the ships (fleet/navy) in the ofrm of the crescent.
Since such a project was existed before, they set the tribe Levi, as the primary bearers of knowledge, and omnipresent supervisors in the Israel project, because previously they are probably the best collaborated with them. The history found them in the form of what now called Luwi culture. In this case also unconscious of own discovery.
It is interesting how the simplest things can so easily miss in the attention of researchers. Regarding this, in my case, after the such conclusion, also was been needed a couple of years that I encounter the problem when writing this page, and that ask myself: Why then this term does not appear in the appointment of the Lord of Abraham, the Lord of Isaac and the Lord of Jacob?
It is clear that, of a some time ago, their masters are not Elohims (Fu Xi) but Achaeans. But, where is that term (for Achaeans), and who is Adonai?
It is needed probably only a second to realize that the term Adonai (Serb.: Adonaj) means: Denyen (Greek. Danaoi, Serb.: Danajci).
What to say? Beautiful day today ... to ... go crazy.
The gods, so-so, are gives to catch. But history requires more than that. It requires recognized nations and famous people.


S   -  Jesse (Eshai, Yishai)     DD   -  David     SLMN   -  Solomon
Esini Adad Nirari I Shalmaneser I

Since that's not nice that the essay is too long, we will shorten the story, and say that: if there are persons who would be available for the history, then those are:
probably David and certainly Solomon.
Especially since that Saul, David and Solomon were not a regional noblemen, but the emperors, the owners of the Empire.
And now, what kind of data the history expected to find about them?
Lets say, if it may assume, it should be some inscription like:
" I am Solomon, son of David, the son of Jesse, king of Israel! "

But even though this form seems to sound perfect, from a life perspective it would be a complete failure.
Here we have no more: the slaves of Egypt nor the subjects of Achaeans. Although still they do not refuse the power of Achaean technological advantages, and receive it through some of own advisers, their political role has entered on the global scene of the Middle East.
The world, in which they lived and ruled, does not read "the Bible". Already at the time of Saul, the subjects were cold rejected Achaean political order and moved to the system with a classical states and empires, because they are the kingdom!
- And, now, there is just the question: whose? Because the emperor, if he is the emperor, he then declares himself on the basis of the several most striking territories, or on the basis of the greatest territory, where ruled.
- In addition, in the multi-ethnic creation, it is not recommended for the emperor to have personal ethnicity,
    and if it is necessary he shall take it based on a political line.
- And finally, for the unimportant people the genealogy is a matter of genetics, and for the rulers it is a matter of policy and informatics.
Why?
Due to fortunate circumstances the history has met the less significant person, named Esini with name that recalls to the biblical Jesse. This small ruler of unknown area Nigimhi, he was disagreeable in that because he was broke into Assyria, in the reign of Arik-den-ili, to carry out reprisals. Since he overestimated his strength he had to accept the subservient status. Of course, the question is what kind of connection he can have with David, except that this is currently only allegorically resembles the fight between David and Goliath? But who is David in general? David is the courtier who finds himself at the court of Saul, and he was pointed out by "using sling"! Now, did anyone ever heard that some skinny slinger hit some gigantic boorish swashbuckler and get hold of the Empire? Because, you have slingers whatever you want, and certainly many of them could be lucky in a similar way. So it's not a matter of an ordinary sling. This is about the use of weapons whose caliber compared to the size of the target and the safe distance is dominated by the moving speed of the ejected projectile. The Giant could be something like a moving armored tower. May be that Esini was trusted in this system also, but the point is in the perfection of his own weapons, as well as quantity, quality and reliability of available explosives against: the power of (more or less) classical armed forces and number of an enemy. Probably it came to the compromise, because they did not dare to approach him, and he had not enough explosives to overpower them.
Obiter, the use of projectiles should not be scandalous, because here we talk about the time in which in Jerusalem is still the coffin (ark) of "miracles" (covenant) that is much more complex than such trifle.
I ask that this story you follow at least hypothetical, because even that it is incorrect, it can serve for the one important explanation for cases of any possible political problems. So, Adad Nirari I was entered to the throne of Assyria. It which is important about it, it is that his name means "Thunderstormer is my support," (referring to: storm with thunder).
As I write this page I tried to check the word David in Hebrew, and so I came to the fact that the same word "dud" has the meaning of the heater, "he who heats". In addition to the storm, his sling caused the warming also. And Adad "thunderstormer" is replaced by the term Dud "heater". The same term is also used for the term "uncle" and "favorite", and of course, the meaning of the name of David is seen as a "favorite", because the other terms could not be clear for interpreters.
On the other hand the problem of losing of ideas about David's name it was resulted with the writing of the vowels. Because, the historically saying, we have rulers who are called: DD and SLMN.
According to the Bible David reigned 40 years, 7 +33, and by the history Adad Nirari I reigned 32 years.
According to the Bible Solomon reigned 40 years, and by the historians Shalmaneser I reigned 30 years.

If we now imagine the situation in which Adad Nirari I is the son of Esini, how it should look his address to the people:
"I am the king of Assyria, the son of Esini who was been penetrated in Assyria in order to enact revenge." (? )

Rehoboam     Saul     GBH Gibeah     Ish-bosheth (Serbian: Ivostej)     KSH Kish     Uriah the Hittite
ruba'um (Assyr. prince / small ruler)
Tukulti-Ninurta I
Shattuara
 
HGB Hanigalbat
 
Wasashatta
 
KSH Kili-Teshup
 
(Serbijan: Urija Hetejin)
Urhi Teshub - Hati

But in history is missing one more person, ie. Solomon's successor Rehoboam.
Bur - ruba'um - is the Assyrian word for prince or "small ruler",
such as Jeroboam is Assyrian word for rival (adversary).
An additional trouble is that in the collection of biblical material it is always difficult to know about whom Shalmaneser text speaks, and there were 5-6 them, so it is realistic to expect that the described events belonged to a rules of several rulers under this name. That initiates problem for dating of the reign of these rulers.

The much bigger problem is that Saul is missing here. It is unrealistic to expect that he did not a historically noted person.
Therefore, no matter that the names Saul and Shattuara are not too similar, it would be logical to check how things stand with the other elements that are related to them.
- The Bible interpreters say that Saul reigned with the "hill" Gibeah, where we have the consonants GBH (and which, of course, by Christian archeology is located where else than at Jerusalem), and history says that Shattuara was the ruler of Hanigalbat, where are remembered three consonants HGB.
- According to the Bible, his son's name was Ish-bosheth, and although neither of the forms Eshbaal, Ashbaal or Ishbaal not resemble the name of Shattuara's son, who is known as Wasashatta, surprisingly in the Serbian version Saul's son is called Ivostej, and we have the congruence of consonants: WST and VST, and now we can see that the word is about the permutation and replace the consonants V i B , that is otherwise a frequent occurrence.
If now the name Wasashatta permutes in: as(h)-Was-hatta - this is the adequate form of the consonant in: Ish-Bos-heth.

( No matter how much time will be required to accept this standpoint
with Ivostej finally is removed any doubt.
His name could be the key by itself, but I was also missed this, because he was not been a significant figure. )

- But let's look at how things stand with Saul's father. According to the Bible he is: Kish (KSH) - while Shattuara's is Shattiwaza, which does not promise anything good. However, historically it has been established that in Hurrian he is: Kili-Teshup, where we have all three consonants KSH.
( By the way, the biblical forms of names are always shorter, because for a story is important that is easier to pronounce. )
- In addition, for Kish it is saying that he belongs to the family of: Matrites (which is obviously information about something important (1 Samuel 10:21), tand it was probably his membership in the population that is somewhere recorded as Ha-ni-gal-bat ; somewhere like: Hu-ur-ri, and somewhere like: Mi-ta-an-ni. Because we have a sameness of the first two consonants: MT.

    Well, now, if we could measure Shattuara, because Samuel said that Saul was for head taller than all ...
But if they can not be measured by the height can be measured by fate.
According to the Bible, Saul, after the death of the three older sons in the battle against the Philistines on "mount" Gilboa, he commits the suicide.
Next 7.5 years David has had clashes with Saul's army commander, Abner son of Ner, and the servants of Ivostej, but yet personally he was campaigned for a good relationship with Abner, and he damned his killers Joab and Abishai,
although it was not been only because of injustice, but also as he says: he is become king but he was still weak
and "these people, the sons of Zeruiah, they were too strong for him" (Abishai/Avisaj/Abšaj and Joab/Joav and Azahel/Asailo).
Then, the youngest son of Saul, Ivostej (Ish-bosheth), who has been returned his sister (David's wife Michal) to David, were killed by two of his army commanders.
But in Ziklag David killed the messenger of the death of Saul, and so also he killed the murderers of Ish-bosheth, afterwards buried his head in Abner's grave at Hebron.

Sa druge strane iako po istorijskom izvoru (od strane Adada) gde se kaze da Shattuara je bio vazal Adadu koji se pobunio bio zarobljen i obnovio lojalnost, se moze zakljuciti da je Adad jednostavno gospodar Shattuarin, u sceni gde David moze da ubije Saula, a samo uzima koplje i casu za vodu, vidimo da stvari u konkretnom dogadjaju mogu biti znatno komplikovanije. jer jedno je stvar direktnoga odnosa njihove medjusobne vojno-politicke dominacije, a drugo je stvar obaveze prema Jehovi kao mentoru.
U politici svojina nad necijim kopljem i casom za vodu je znak pokoravanja. Adad bi u ovakovj situaciji imao svako pravo da kaze da je Shattuara njegov podanik, bez obzira da li ga se u stvari jos uvek pribojava, kao sto se u Bibliji David jos uvek pribojava Saula.
Po istorijskim izvorima posle asirskoga slamanja Hanigalbata Wasashatti se gubi svaki trag, i nemamo podatak kako je ubijen. Sto bi bilo sasvim logicno buduci da po biblijskim izvorima David ne zeli da ima nista sa ubistvom Ivosteja.

- U stvari, ako sada pogledamo Davidovu politiku prema sinovima Serujinim, ovo: Seruja, Zeruiah, Tzruya ili Zeruya se moze odnositi na Hanigalbatu srodnu populaciju Huri, a ne na ime Davidove sestre (uzgred usamljenost ovoga "matronima" je odavno primecena.), tada mozemo razumeti Davidov potez da ove Hurijanske vojskovodje prebaci na osudu od strane drugih pripadnika razbijene Hanigalbatske tvorevine. To nam moze baciti nesto unutrasnjega svetla na problematiku Adadove vladavine podrucjem Mitani.

Odnosno za razliku od arheologije i istorije koji dolaze prvenstveno do sturih administrativnih podataka, ma koliko biblijski izvori bili podlozni devijacijama oni imaju tu vrednost da u sebi sadrze em tehnoloski-vojno-saznajne elemente, em udaljeno-politicke elemente koji nisu vidljivi za obicnu administraciju i gradjanstvo, em zivotno emotivne elemente.

Zato je bitno koristiti obe vrste izvora, ne samo da bi se poredjenjima mogle ispraviti neke devijacije, nego i u slucajevima kada ova dva izvora govore o sasvim razlicitim momentima iz necijega zivota. Na takav nacin recimo mogla bi se sada pratiti sudbina jos jednog lica, o kome bi se na prvi pogled ne bi moglo reci nista narocito, tj. sudbine lica koje se zvalo

Urija Hetejin
Naime, iz nekoga razloga Adad je jos na pocetku svoga carevanja bio odlucio da poseti planinu Amanus (danasnja Turska provincija Hataj) inace tadasnji deo drzave Hati (Hetitska drzava). Medjutim tadasnji vladar Hetita, Mursili III,
poznat i kao Urhi Teshub, vrlo neljubazno je negodovao, ne samo na Adadovo tituliranje sebe kao kralja-kraljeva, tj, sveopsteg vladara, nego i u vezi toga da veliki hetitski vladari nikada nisu male asirske vladare nazivali bracom, podsecajuci ga i na to da njihove majke nisu bile sestre (sto je moglo imati i notu razlike u licno-socijalnom poreklu).
Medjutim, vladavina ovog drcnog vladara trajala je 5 eventualno 7 godina, posle cega je pobegao u Egipat. Ono sto istorija zna, to je da je ovo izazvalo politicku krizu izmedju Hetita i Egipta, posle cega je Ramzes II morao pristati na klauzulu o njegovom izrucenju, i od tada mu se gubi svaki trag.
Nije dakle nelogicno da je slucajno ili namerno Urija pobegao Egipcanima i pridruzio se Asircima, gde se izuzetno revnosno motao oko kovcega zaveta sa nadom da ce ovim putem, i uz volju Ahajaca, ponovo kad-tad doci na vlast. Na njegovu zalost David koristi trik kako bi on poginuo u jednoj bici, posle cega nikome u blizoj okolini, politicki gledano nije bilo krivo zbog njegove smrti, ali je to zestoko uvredilo Jehove, koji su u vezi njega verovatno imali neki plan. smene u hetitskoj vlasti.

Inace postoji jos jedna paralela, koja za sada nema lingvisticku podrsku, ali je upadljiva.
Nime i u vladavini David - Solomon - Roboam postoji Natan kao savetnik svoj trojici,
kao sto u nizu Adad - Salmaneser - Tukulti-Ninurta savetnik je Babu-aha-iddina.
Inace "sukkalmahhu" je zvanje visokoga funkcionera i glavnog cuvara skladista. Sto mozda ima nekakve veze i sa imenom Samuilo (Shemuwel), ali je za sada to jos nebitno.

I kolikogod da ova etapa hipoteticki zvuci ona ce nas ipak povezati sa pricom o plemenima Izrailjevim. Jer...


"Izgubljena" plemena i "zagubljene" sudije

Asher     (Serbian: Asir)       Nobah   (Serbian: Navav)       Manasseh (Serbian: Manasija)       Gad
Assyria   (Serbian: Asirija) Nineveh (Serbian: Niniva) Manishtushu Akkad   ( Sumerian: Agade )

... dok u hrvatskimj verzijiama jedno od plemena se naziva Ašer, u srpskim je najcesce jednostavno imenovano kao Asir.
Po bibliji ovo pleme se vrlo rano izdvojilo iz Izraela, a pripojilo mu se na kratko tek sa Saulom da bi sa Rehoboamom se ponovo izgubilo.
Sada mozemo videti i zasto, a mozemo videti i da nije Ašer usao u sastav drzave Izrael nego je Asirija privremeno postala nosilac projekta Izrael.

Nakon izlaska iz Egipta, posle dva odlaganja od po 40 godina, tek treci pokusaj je dao nekih uspeha, ali ni tu stvari nisu tekle po planu Ahajaca.
Ocigledno je da oni nisu bili preterano zainteresovani za juzna podrucja koja su do Crvenog mora jer su tu vec imali neku vrstu saradnje sa narodima koje su Izraelci po njihovoj volji mimoisli bez sukoba, niti su bili zainteresovani za istocne predele, ali 2 plemena Gad i Ruvim i polovina plemena Manasijina zbog kolicine stoke koju su posedovali trazili su peredele ka istoku za sebe.
Iako su danasnje "lokacije" biblijskih gradova uglavnom netacne, u slucaju gradova Astarot i Edrei sa kojima tako reci otpocinju Izraelska osvajanja su verovatno tacne lokacije. Sa obzirom da su oni istocno od takozvanog Jesera Galeilejskoga, na to je trebalo obratiti paznju, jer to je zaledjina sa koje se moze krenuti u napad na podrucje onih velikih "grozdova" na motki iz izvidjanja u drugom pokusaju, koji su u stvari urme iz strateski kljucnoga reona grada Kadesa na reci Orontes.
A ako su krenuli sa juga jasno je da se krecu ka severu. Sticajem okolnosti najlaksi trag u istoriji ide preko najmladejga sina Manasijinog, koji se zvao Navav i koji je zauzeo Kenath (Serb: Kenat) i nazvao ga Navav. Jer ovo nas odvodi do Ninive, u vezi cijega naziva istorija jos nema jasno objasnjenje. Zasto? Zato sto kada je Niviva dosla pod politicku kontrolu akadskih kraljeva s juga, zabelezeno je da je jedan od tih kraljeva bio Manishtushu (oko 2269.-2255.)

Ovde, kao i u slucaju Ivosteja, mogli smo samo pratiti nazive pa bi smo dosli do spoja biblije i istorije. Ali niko nije ocekivao da je rec o prostoru koji je daleko veci i o vremenu koje je daleko duze nego sto se pretpostavljalo.
Druga greska sastojala se u tome sto se na imena plemena gledalo fiksno, kao da izmedju vremena ropstva u Egiptu i savremenijih istrazivaca nisu postojali ljudi koji su korigovali nazive sa manje poznatih na bolje poznate, tj. tada "savremenije".

Jos uvek je tesko reci da li je Akkad (Sumerian: Agade) ono sto je u bibliji pleme Gad. I za sada ne bih da insistiram na tome, ali je to vrlo moguce.

Jericho       Ebal (Serbian: Eval)       Arba (Serbian: Arva)       Anakites (Serb: Enakimi )       Debir   (Serb: Davir)
Ariha (in Syria) Ebla Arwad Aynook Derbly (Tripoli in Lebanon)

Medjutim, ova Akadska prodiranja su se dogadjala kasnije, kada su se ova 2,5 plemena vratila na istocne teritorije. Pre toga, za racun zapadnih prodora osvojen je grad Jerihon. osim navodne biblijske lokacije ovo ime sasvim sigurno nosi lokacija Ariha (Sirija) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariha_(Syria), a Isus navin, posle osvajanja Jerihonskoga seta gradova na gori Eval postavlja oltar sto je etimoloski logicno povezati sa cuvenim lokalitetom Ebla.

Nacin na koji su svojevremeni istrazivaci gresili mozemo videti na primeru grada koji je pripao Caleb (Serb: Halev), coveku koji je u drugom pokusaju uhodio obecanu zemlju i bio spreman da je osvaja. U biblijskim spisima je uneto:
"Zato pripade Hevron Halevu... Hevronu bese pre Kirijat-Arva, a Arva bese velik covek medju Enakimima..."
Istrazivaci su bili posli od toga da je termin Arva slican terminu Hevron, medjutim rec je bila o lokaciji: Arwad (utvrdjenje na osvrvu juga Sirije) , cije ime na fenicanskom glasi: Aynook. A ovo je u stvari naziv za narod Enakime (en. Anakites).
Sa ovom lokacijom Ahajski projekat se definitivno sigurno probio kroz srce obale Levanta, gradeci tu dalja uporista te Halev za zeta dobija coveka koji je osvojio grad Davir odnosno Tripoli (sever obale Libana) koji se u pismima iz Amarne naziva: Derbly.
I time je Gotonilo (en. Othniel, rus. Gofoniil) postao vredan polozaja prvoga sudije projekta Izrael.

Gideon  (Serb: Gedeon )       Jotham   (Serb: Jotam)                         Samson
Gudea ( 2144 - 2124 ) Utu-??? Samsun

Na zalost jos uvek je tesko u istoriji pronaci sudije. Medjutim, vezivanjem plemena manasijinog za termin drzave Manishtushu je otvorilo put do najmarkantnijeg sudije, koji je kako kaze iz najsiromasnijega roda u plemenu Manasijinom, i poslednji u domu oca svojega, odnosno Gedeona.
Naravno rec je o coveku u istoriji poznatom pod imenom Gudea (2144 - 2124), sin Joasa Avijezerita. Tesko je reci u kakvom su tacno odnosu Gudea i Puzer, ali je Puzer-Mama bio vladar Lagasa ispred Gudee.
U svakome slucaju globalno gledano smo u pravom regionu, jer upotrebu termina puzer, od cega je nastalo biblijsko Abijezerit, imamo i u slucajevima: Puzur-Inshushinak (kralj Elama, 2240 - 2220), kao i u imenu Erridupizir (Guti vladar Sumera, 2141 - 2138)
Dok istorija kaze da je Gudea izbio na politicku povrsinu u vreme klimatskih poremecaja, biblija navodi da je Gedeon bio pritisnut Medjanima, Amalicanima i "istocnim narodom", koji su u ogromnom broju nadolazili u vreme prikupljanja letine.
Naizgled u Bibliji je posle njegove smrti ubijeno 70 njegovih "sinova", ali je moguce da je rec o 70 ensija (namesnika) po gradovima. U svakom slucaju buduci da je jedini preziveli imenovan kao: Jotam - verovatno je njegovo ime bilo: Utu, ali je za sada tesko reci da li je rec o Utu-hengal-u.

Najspecificniji slucaj medju pricama o sudijama je prica o Samsonu, kada je rec o sadrzaju teksta. naime za razliku od vecine tekstova koji govore racionalnim nacinom, tekst o Samsonu se izrazava pomorsko-kartografskim slikama, koje su u Bibliji najcesce predstavljene kao "zagonetke". U stvari nije slucajno da danasnjih grad Samsun ( Eis Amisos, Sampsunda ) nosi ime adekvatno imenu Samson, ma kako da je tekla njihova etimoloska veza.
Naime ovaj sudija je svoju ulogu dobio u vreme kada su iz nekoga razloga Ahajci bili u krizi i Fenicani su se probili u oblast Crnog mora. Samsonova zagonetka o lavu i pcelama je u stvari tvrdnja da ce "pcele" tj. Egejski arhipelag Ahajaca nadvladati Fenicanske pomorske prostore, tj. lava koji lezi na ledjima, i kome je griva obala Libije a sapa Jadransko more. Njegovo oruzje "magareca vilica" je u vezi sa ostrvom Krim koje je u obliku glave magarca, a njegova snaga verovatno proistice iz nekih resursa koji su na Ukrajinskoj obali Azovskoga mora, koja podseca na pramenove kose. Na Samsonovu nesrecu, Fenicani su uspeli zavladati i Azovskim i Crnim morem, a da bi im se osvetio, odnosno bar delimicno ih osujetio, posle nekog vremena za oporavak Samson je uspeo zatvoriti ("srusiti") oba "stuba" tj. moreuza Mramornoga mora, i tu im naneti katastrofalan poraz. Na taj nacin je uspeo povratiti Crno i Azovsko more, ali je ostao "slep", jer ogranicen na ova svoja dva "zatvorena oka" on je bio osudjen na stagnaciju koja vodi u neminovnu propast.

Iako poreklom iz plemena Danovog, Samson, kao sudija vise plemena je vojno-politicki uticaj izgleda usmerio na teritoriju drzave istoriji poznate kao: Zalpuwa ( Zalpa ); a Bibliji kao pleme: Zebulun.

Zebulon (Heb: Zavulun)       Isahar ( Issachar, Yissachar )       Naphtali (Nephthalim)   (Serb: Neftalim)
Zalpuwa ( Zalpa ) Hayasa Pamphylia

Jos jedno Izrailjsko pleme mozemo naci u dodiru sa Crnim morem, a to je: Issachar ( Yissachar ); odnosno u istoriji poznata drzava: Hayasa.
Juzno od njih nalazilo se pleme: Neftalim ( Nephtalim ); koje nam je verovatno poznato pod nazivom: Pamfilija ( Pamphylia ).
Iako se smatra da naziv Pamfilije znaci "pan"+"phyle" (svi narodi, tj. pomesana rasa) po biblijskom nazivu pre ce biti da je jednostavno rec o terminu za naftu ( naphtha ), koja je izvirala u zapadnom reonu koji zovemo Likija.

Simeon   (Serb: Simon)
and
Judah     (Serb: Juda)
Sam'al   (Hittite:)   Yadiya   (Aramaic: Ya'idi)

Tesko je sada reci sta je gora Tabor koja je bila njihova tromedja i mesto okupljanja. I jos se ne moze sa sigurnoscu reci da su plemena Simon i Juda ono sto je u istoriji poznato kao reon kulture Sam'al, na hetitskom: Yadiya; a na aramejskom: Ya’idi, ali svakako ce se vremenom iskristalisati jasnija slika.

Bitno je da ovaj esej je pokazao da raskorak izmedju biblijskih i istorijskih podataka nije rezultat nedostatka podataka nego:
pogresnoga shvatanja termina Izrael u njegovom: smisaono-prostorno-vremenskom znacenju.
Jer izrael nije bio ni potreba ni zamisao Izraelaca,
nego milenijumski duga geo-strateska politika Ahijava.

top

   2     Epilogue     (the first and last are... gods of nature)     :

Jesus (Serb.:) Isus Christ (Serb.:) Hrist Caesar instead Caesar Peter (wrong: "rock")
Shush(u)
   
cognitive level that characterizes "silence"
   
      Hry-sStA
(Egyptian:) Owner (Lord) of
knowledge of processes on soil,
in atmosphere & below ground
      Emperor's advisor
   
   
   
      Kepha (li-s)
(correctly: "head/chief")
from expression "cornerstone",
which symbolizes the hydrogen

sadducees pharisees
scientists / expert administration     (from: "caducei/caduceus", ie. stick of wisdom)         nobility     (from Aramaic: "prs/prsh" = horsemen)

      Buduci da su Ahajski lideri, prvo pod terminom Adonaj (Danajci), a potom Jehova (Ahajci) uporno nastojali da ove svoje protektorate odvoje od klasicnog zapadanja prirodne nauke u nadprirodnu misteriju njihovim izumiranjem otvoren je prostor za najapstraktniju i najpojednostavljeniju formu shvatanja prirodno-drustvenih sila koju danas poznajemo kao monoteizam, a sto je potpuno filozofska apstrakcija - bazirana iskljucivo na tumacenju tekstova, bez ikakvoga stvarnoga dodira bilo sa prirodom bilo sa drustvom.
      Iako bez ikakvih konkternih rezultata, oslanjajuci se iskljucivo na imaginarno shvatanje ona je upravo stoga lako preplavila svet jer se domogla fleksibilnosti politickoga preghlasavanja. U tome momentu (stvarno tj. prakticno) znanje je definitivno izgubilo bitku sa filozofijom institucionalne aristokratije, ali su u tome ipak odlucujucu ulogu odiglrao eho svojevremene upornosti Ahajaca da nastoje civilozovati ljudska ponasanja nasuprot klasicnim paganskim devijacijama.
      Ova prazna institucionalna sitnicavost karakteristicna je za svet bez racionalne individualnosti ali i bez masovne histericnosti. To vise nije bio svet lomova izmedju Mojsija i Izraelaca, pri cemu je po ko zna koliko puta potezano pitanje da li ce izraelci ubiti Mojsija jer im se ne svidjaju dobijeni zadaci, ili ce Mojsije pobiti njih jer ih nisu izvrsili. Zato ovaj svet i nije mogao razumeti odnose aktera odnosno sadrzaje Biblije.

Do sada sam pretpostavljao da Apolonije zbog lokacije grada Tijane je samo lice koje zbog edukacije se lako snalazi u Bibliji, medjutim, sada se ispostavilo da on u stvari i pripada reonu izrailjevih plemena. U svoje doba upravo on je tak koji je siru svetsku slavu zadobio u vreme u kome godinama nije bio izgovorio ni jednu jedinu rec. ova metoda cutanja (otuda Isus, tj. Shush(u)) koriscena je
a) da bi ucenik potpuno oslobodio besmislenog govornistva tj. filozofije i presao na praksu dokazivanja delima,
b) da bi se sto lake priblizio "govoru" prirtode, odnosno znacima izrazavanja prirodnih sila.
Otuda nije bilo potrebno navoditi njegovo licno ime, koje sustinski nema nikakvoga znacaja, a nasa nesreca je da se tema fokusirala na Jerusalimske dogadjaje koji su se desavali znatno kasnije.
U to vreme i slava hramova, narocito egipatskih je bila javno dovoljno poznata stvar, te se znalo sta znaci titula Hry-sStA (Gospod), te ni ova titula otuda nije uopste objasnjavana u bibliji, jer se to podrazumevalo.

Poenta je u tome da posle nestanka drustvenih bogova (Jehove su izumrle dosta vekova ranije) Apolonije i Muhamed su imali na raspolaganju samo prorodne bogove u vreme kada je filozofija preuzimala definitivni primat nad praksticnim znanjima. Buduci da su se pripadnici hramova morali podeliti u dva oprecna tabora, oni koji su se opredelili za praksu hteli ili ne hteli morali su se staviti pod dominaciju Apolonija koji je jedini organizovao medjunarodnu telekomunikacionu mrezu, i kao povremeni carski savetnik time je stvorio instituciju obratno-paralelnoga drustvenog uredjenja imperiji. Njegovi "priprosti" ribari u stvari su ljudi koji su nekom vrstom sonara bili lovili jata riba, te su lako prebaceni u telekomunikacijsku mrezu "lova na ljude". Sto nam je kao i u ranijem slucaju Jehova uslovilo dalji problem sa pisanim izvorima.
komunikacijska imena njegovih administratora su bila grcka, kao i inace u to toba, a kasniji latinski tumaci su pogresno preveli ime Kifa (glavni, od "glava") u termin "kamen", jer je ime simbolicno bilo vezano za temin "vodonik", kao glavni hemijski element koji je temelj ne samo razvoja materije nego i merenja atomske tezine (otuda smatranje da je Papa "nepogresiv", tj. u odnosu na vodonik mere se stvarne, "istinske" tezine svih ostalih). Izraz "Glava od ugla koju odvalise zidari" odnosi se na ovaj "kamen temeljac" sistema hemijskih elemenata u kome je vodonik kao prvi karakteristicno odvojen u tabeli.
A za nas je trenutno najbitnije da
a) ovo ukazuje na to koliko su komentari zateceni u novozavetnim tekstovima daleko od shvatanja o cemu je rec. Odnosno da su daleko udaljeniji od dogadjaja nego sto se to pretpostavlja.
b) Da istorijske podatke o licima kao sto je "Petar" ne mozemo pronaci pa sve da nam je sacuvana sva postojeca administrativno arhiva toga doba.

Ali bez obzira na sve to, da bi smo izveli zakljucak o tome koliko je ljudima zaista stalo do bogova, dovoljno je uvideti da se izostanak "Jehove" jednostavno ne primecuje. Koga je briga sto se ime starozavetnog boga tu ne spominje? Jedina vazna stvar je da se ljudima nudi bozanska vecnost - a bogovi neka umiru.

top

   3     Pitanja Dr. Miloša Abadžića

      Iako prof. dr. Miloš Abadžić se bavi fizikom i ima drugacije stavove o ovoj temi izasao mi je u susret sa nekoliko kljucnih pitanja:

1) Kolikio su raspolozivi tekstovi originalni, odnosno ko je sve i zasto ucestvovao u njihovoj naknadnoj obradi, da ne kazem falsifikovanju?
2) Koliko su oni prilagodjavani nekim lokalistickim interesima u pojedinim vremenskim razdobljima?
3) Da li je potrebno prethodno dekodirati raspolozive tekstove ili odgovoriti na pitanje "sta je autor hteo da kaze?"
4) Ko su bili pravi i izvorni autori raspolozivih varijanti pisanih i nepisanih stavova i kojem razvojnom nivou odredene populacije su bili namenjeni?
5) Mozda ce biti bez odgovora ali mi se namece jedno pitanje "Koji je Vas cilj?"

Odgovori:

1) Mi u osnovi imamo dve vrste tekstova: a) one koji se smatraju "istorijskim", b) one koji se smatraju "mitskim", u koje spadaju i biblijski.
Istorijski tekstovi su u osnovi administrativno-politicki. Okrenuti su dnevnopolitickim potrebama i imaju u sebi navedene nazive koji su u upotrebi u tom konkretnoistorijskom trenutku. Sto ne znaci da su oni apsolutno tacni, odnosno ne retko se tekstovi iz istoga vremena o istom dogadjaju znatno razlikuju, jer razliciti ljudi su em informisani u razlicito tacnom stepenu, em postoji ljudska subjektirnost, plus razlike u edukaciji itd.
Sa njima imamo problem zbog toga sto su cesto pisani na tvrdim materijalima i obicno su vrlo kratki, tako da kada je rec o najinteresantnijim temama koje su i najkompleksnije, te u ekstremnim slucajevima, kada je rec o nekom posebnom projektu, vec i citalac sledece generacije moze imati problem sa shvatanjem teksta. Daleko manji problem je to sto informacija moze biti namerno lazna, jer u tom slucaju je tema obicno nebitna a stil je suvise naivan.
Takozvani "mitski" tekstovi pak, posebno oni koji nas najvise interesuju kao sto su epovi i biblijski tekstovi su u originalu nekada bili ogromni tomovi hronicarskih podataka. Osnovni problem ovih podataka je u tome sto biblioteke kad-tad stradaju. Tako da u vise navrata sa razmacima od dosta vekova oni moraju da se iznova revidiraju, sto naravno ima za posledicu em skracivanje em dovijanje revizora. Ali buduci da su to uvek ogromni i ozbiljni projekti, u kojima ucestvuje mnogo ljudi vise moze biti rec o opstedrustvenim nego subjektivnim greskama, i te greske imaju lako shvatljivu logiku nastanka. Odnosno vrlo su pravilne.
Tako na primer jedna vrlo cesta pravilna greska je upotreba termina "Gospod Bog". Ovu gresku prave i savremeni prevodiocu sto cemo moci videti u sledecem poglavlju. Odnosno ona nastaje tako sto u tekstu prvo imamo navedeno "ime" posle koga sledi odrednica "moj gospodar". A buduci da se to ime bilo opravdano ili neopravdano smatra bozanskim, tj. ima ili se cini da ima bozanske prerogative, ljudi ostaju fascinirani terminom "bog", iako je on tu manje bitan. Odnosno termin bog je stvar personalne ili drustvene titulatnosti, pocetne ili naknadne, dok je termin "gospodar" stvar pravnoga odnosa koji je uvek jasan i tacan.
Ukratko receno, u bitnim tekstovima ne postoji namerno falsifikovanje. Nego falsifikovanje silom prilika.
Na primer u nekim biblijskim tekstovima postoje delovi posle kojih su ubacana pogresna pojasnjenja, ali nisu ubacana umesto delova koje objasnjavaju, nego su oni ostavljani u zatecenom stanju. Da to nije ucinjeno tekst bi za citaoca bio previse konfuzan. Sa druge strane, ako bi se naslo bolje tumacenje ubacena pojasnjenja se mogu brisati. U originalima to je sigurno bilo i obelezeno, kao sto u Koranu imamo takve delove u zagradama.

2) Postoje namerno plagirani ili potpuno izmisljeni tekstovi, kao sto su recimo gnosticki tekstovi, ili u relativno novije vreme ono sto je radjeno na teritoriji SAD-a. Ali to se lako oseti i njima se ne pridaje narocita paznja. U slucaju mitsko-biblijskih tekstova problem je prvenstveno u pogresnom nacinu tumacenja smisla do koga se dolazi pogresnim nacinom tumacenja upotrebljavanih termina. Dakle stvar je vrlo jednostavna. U terminologiji je kljuc. Konkretno, pojam "pneuma" (duh) se nemoze tretirati kao nematierijalna stvar posto etimoloski on znaci "dah, disanje", dakle, materijalan je. Ista stvar je sa svim kljucnim terminima. A to nije neki narocit problem posto se reci formiraju tako da na osnovu srodnosti sa drugim pojmovima same po sebi objasnjavaju svoj smisao. Druga je stvar sto postoji nedostatak volje. Teisti ne bi da naruse svoja ideoloska shvatanja a ateisti se ponasaju nezainteresovano kao da je rec o kugi sa kojom ne bi da imeju nikakvih dodirnih tacaka.

3) Tekstovi se kodiraju jedino u slucaju kada je velik broj podataka potrebno smestiti na fizicki male medije. To je vrlina ovih medija. Medjutim njihova mana je u tome da oni ne traju dugo (lako se ostete), a i postaju bezznacajni gubljenjem uredjaja za kodirano zapisivanje i dekodirano izcitavanje. Tesko je ocekivati da iz davnih vremena naidjemo na ostatke ovakvih zapisa. Te raspolozivi tekstovi, tj. tekstovi citljivi bezn nekih posebnih uredjaja nikada nisu kodirani. Problem je u necem drugom.... (pogledati sledeci odgovor).

4) (Evo zasto su ova pitanja bila pun pogodak...) Naime, nije poenta u tome ko je bio autor tekstova. Buduci da je rec o izuzetno vaznim dogadjajima poenta je u tome ko su bili "autori", tj glavni akteri dogadjaja.
I pazite sada (ovo je najbitnije)....
Mi pisane opise dogadjaja dobijamo uglavnom od drzavne administracije (oni su "autori" tekstova, ali posto to nije beletristika, naziv "autor" je sporan).
Ali - uvek i iskljucivo - od administracije satelitskih drzava!
Oni su ti koji upotrebljavaju klasicne pisane nacine informisanja.
A kada Jehove (odnosno Ahijave) se obracaju Mojsiju ili bilo kome oni upotrebljavaju "grm koji gori" i Mojsije tom prilikom se penje na neko uzviseno brdo da bi mogao lakse primiti poruku koja ide glasom. Jer je brze da se Mojsije popne na uzvisenje nego da oni njemu i on njima salju pismene poruke, koje moraju putovati suvise dugo.
Dakle to je razlog zbog koga mi nemamo zapise glavnih kreatora odnosno autora dogadjaja!
Dodatan problem je taj sto Jehove koji su glavni akteri nisu Ahajsko drustvo u celini, nego njegov elitni deo, te kada arheolozi i istoricari dodju do zapisa na Ahajskim podrucjima oni dolaze u stvari do podaraka onih drzavnih tj. socijalnih struktura koje nisu mnogo razlicite od klasicnih drustava, i nikako ne mogu da ih povezu sa terminom Jehova.
Dakle sve dok sociologija ne shvati da telekomunikacijaka upotreba zive reci ima saznajni i istorijsko-uticajni primat nad upotrebom tekstualnih artefakata, ona ce "istorijske" podatke stavljati iznad "mitskih", dok bi u stvari trebalo biti obratno.
Dakle Jehove su se konkretno obracale samo onom malom delu obrazovanih ljudi koji su bili u stanju da koriste tehnoloski napredna sredstva, sa tim sto oni nisu bili istoricari odnosno hronicari nego izvrsioci politickih naloga. A same informacije nama stizu preko daleko-daleko manje edukovanih ljudi. Buduci da hronicari nisu elita ni satelitskih drzava.
Jer ni Jehove ni Mojsije nisu radili ono sto su radili nas radi, nego sebe radi. A sta cemo mi o tome misliti za njih je bila poslednja briga, kao lanjski sneg. Zasto? Takodje cete videti u sledecem poglavlju. Jer Ahijave jesu bile ekstremno drustvo, ali nisu bile jedini koji su imali toliku moc. I njima je gorelo pod nogama. Takav je zivot. Surov i nemilosrdan. Ili sto bi smo rekli: "Svet je ovaj tiran tiranima."
      Ono sto se takodje previdja kada je rec o pisanim tekstovima, u koliko su u pitanju knjige, tj. relativno propadljiv materijal, to je da one opstaju najduze na lokacijama sa adekvatnom klimom, kao sto je okolina Mrtvog mora, Kao i danas, tako i u proslosti, ovo je za njih bilo najbezbednije mesto. Zato je Biblija stigla iz Biblosa, ali nije se razmisljalo o tome da to ne znaci da su i opisani dogadjaji sa toga prostora. Otuda mi imalo pogresno lociranje biblijskih dogadjaja koje je bilo blokiralo svaku povezanost izuzetno poznatih istorijskih licnosti Bliskoga istoka i "mitskih" junaka iz Biblije. A u nauci je kao i u statistici. Ako se samo jedan bitan parametar iscita pogresno citav rezultat odlazi u opsajd (zastrani).

5) Naravno da cu odgovoriti na pitanje "Koji je moj cilj?".
Prvo, moj ceilj je shvatanje svih stvari u realnom smislu. Ni meni se ne svidja ta realnost. Vrlo je gorka i opora.
Ali ne bih da budem marioneta filozofskih genija, i veoma mi smeta kontemplacija bez kokretnih i razumljivih resenja. Te ovako je, te onako je. "Sta je kojoj babi milo to joj se i snilo".
Konkretno u vezi ove strane, dosao sam do kraja.
Naime, teorijski gledano, posto svi imaju pravo na svoje misljenje, mi smo do sada imali sledece mogusnosti:
a) Da postoje bogovi/bog iznad prirode. Ali u tome slucaju resenja svega zavise od njihove/njegovbe volje. Ako oni/on ne zeli da objasni stvari besmisleno je da se trudimo. Jer tada to spada u resor nadprirodne i naddrustvene sile, tj. faktora.
b) Eventualno, danas postoji i takva teorija da su bogovi dolazili iz svemira, pa bi smo trebali za resenje cekati sledeci dolazak.
c) U klasicno-ateistickoj opciji gde se tvrdi da su bogovi teznja ljudi da objasne nejasne im prirodne pojave stvari stoje vrlo konfuzno. I nemozete ih uhvatiti ni za rep ni za glavu. Takva prica je vrlo dosadna i vrlo primitivna, a nema nikakva konkretan odnos prema tekstovima. Nego se ponasa krajnje proizvoljno.

d) Sada u, nazovimo "teorijskoj" mogusnosti, koju zastupam, gde su bogovi one prirodne i one drustvene sile koje su od odsudnoga znacaja za dogadjaje u prirodi ili drustvu, kada je rec o drustvenim silama, i gde se tvrdi da je tu rec o onim drustvima koja su saznajno-tehnoloski naprednija u meri u kojoj mogu biti gospodari drugim dtustvima, posle dovoljnoga fonda arheolosko-tekstualnih podaraka, mi smo dosli u mogusnost da etimoloski detektujemo znatan broj aktera kao narode kao i znatan broj konkretnih jedinki koja nam se pojavljuju u istoriji.
Vrlina ovog pristupa je u tome da mozemo razumeti ne samo ponasanje Ahijava nego i ponasanje Izraela. Ma koliko da nisam ljubitelj takvoga ponasanja, moramo biti svesni da niko ne bi da bude pod necijim patronatom. Isto je i danas. Srbija ne bi da prati iskustava politicko-tehnoloski iskusnijih naroda kao sto su SAD ili zajednica Evropske Unije, nego bi da izmislja neku svoju autohtonu politiku.
A inace nije tesko shvatiti da termini kao sto su: hetitsko Ahijava i biblijsko Jehova, ili Danajci i biblijsko Adonaj su isti termini.
Jer ne postiji niko drugi, ni konkretan ni nekonkretan da moze imenskim terminima konkurisati ovom resenju.
Igra je gotova.
Koliko ce vremena proteci da se njeni rezultati prihvate to nije nesto sto je do mene. Sto je bilo do mene - zavrseno je.
Ako ovaj svet zeli ziveti u neznanju, mistici i konfuziji, na zdravlje mu bilo. Ukusi su razliciti
Licno mislim da od toga samo moze boleti glava i nista vise. Ko ne zeli vise od realnosti nemora se vise patiti sa besmislenim pitanjima.
Na ovoj strani spojeni su sadrzaji i istorijskih i mitskih tekstova. Nigde vise necete naci takav spoj.
Ni iz daleka toliko uspesan.

Inace mozda bi o ovim otkricima trebalo da kazem par reci "insajderski". Naime jos oko 1993. godine primetio sam na jenoj mapi da termini Ahijava, Arzava, Isuwa... se lako uklapaju u biblijsku terminologiju, ali mi se cinilo da je to suvise jednostavno. Znatno kasnije sam bio siguran u to ko su Jehove, a samo sam pretpostavljao da su Adad Nirari I i Salamanaser I David i Solomom, samo nisam imao dovoljno povezanih podataka. Sumnjao sam i na Gudeu, ali to nikako nije moglo da se ukopi u jasnu pricu, jer su se lokacije cinile dalekim. Tek 2012. isprovociran jenom komunikacijom, i sa znatno vise iskusta usao sam u pisanje ove strane, i neznajuci koliko mnogo imena ce se tom priliko "otvoriti". Nailazenje na podatke o Esiniju (Jeseju) i citanje Wasashatte kao Ivosteja ostavili su me bez svake sumnje. Dale ovo nije bio hod po svaku cenu. To je bio rezultat mnogih godina osluskivanja znatnog broja porataka, koji je pratila uzdrzanost i stalno preispitivanje. Pri radu na ovoj strani jednostavno receno zapljusnula me je bujica termina koji su bili u stanju da se i istorijski i mitski uklope u jasnu sliku, odnosno razumljiv smisao sa istorijskim tragovima.
Kada se sada setim te mape, pomislim: gde mi je glava bila?

top

   4     Sinful Ahaziah as the witness
of the contemporary restructuring of historical text in the semi-myth

Ahaziah or Ochozias (Serbian:) Ohozija Jehosheba or Jehoshabeath (Serbian:) Josaveja
Uhha-Ziti                 Gassulawiya

Oko nesrecnoga Ohozije imamo zamrsenu situaciju jer se u bibliji pojavljuju. Ohozija od Izraela (853-852) vladao 2 godine i Ohozija od od Jude (841) vladao 1 godinu. Ali ovoga puta nece biti tema istoricnosti biblijskih likova.
Govoricu samo o istorijskom Ohoziji, koji bilo da jeste bilo da nije biblijski Ohozija od Izraela (koji je po bibliji "propao kroz svoju terasu i povredio se neizlecivo") u svakom slucaju nosi ovo ime ( Uhha-Ziti ) na pravom mestu, odnosno na mestu vladara drzave Arzawa. Interesantno je i to da Josaveja iz price o Ohoziji od Jude ima izgleda isto ime kao i zena Mursilija II ( Gassulawiya ). Dakle, u najmanju ruku nalazimo se u reonu gde su ta imena u upotrebi u istorijskim podacima. Podaci o kojima je rec su anali (letopisi) hetitskoga vladara Mursilija, ciju vladavinu su istoricari smestili u period 1321/2 - 1295 i dodelila mu redni broj 2 (Mursili II).
A sta kazu anali?
1) (Godina 3. - 15) Anali kazu da omamo tekst: "Moj gospodar Tarhus (Tarhunnas) je nacinio cudo: on je bacio svetleci .....". U kome taj svetleci objekat koji je posmatrala cela Mursilijeva vojska pogodio je grad Efes. Mursili jos kaze da su stradala Uhazitijeva kolena. Nije bilo potpuno nelogicno izvesti zakljucak da je rec o meteoritu, ali da taj meteorit padne u toku vojnog pohoda na grad u kome se nalazi protivnicki vladar i da vladaru stradaju kolena, nije da to ne biva, ali biva u crtanim filmovima.
Posto je Mursili poprilicno kratkoreciv, tesko je sada pretpostaviti o kakvom napadu iz vasduha je rec, jer bar danas imamo pretpostavke da su Hetiti u to vreme koristili biolosko oruzje, a time je njihv gospodar u tome morao biti ingeniozniji, je se stvar mozda i svela na samo jedan (bioloski) projektil.
2) (Godina 3. - 7) Ali kakav god da je bio ovaj vazdusni napad druga greska se sastoji u tome sto se previdja da je pre njega Mursili Uhazitiju bio jasno rekao:
"Vi ste mene bili nazvali detetom da bi me ponizili. A sada, hajde! Boricemo se. Neka moj gospodar Tarhus presudi ovaj slucaj."
Dakle, drugi previd bio je u tome sto se nije obratila paznja na to da je Mursili prethodno bio najavio Tarhusovo ucesce.
Naravno, i ovo bi se moglo tumaciti kao pretnja apstraktnim bogom koja se slucajno obistinila.
3) (Godina 4. - 71) Ali kod treceg propusta nemoze se vise imati razumevanja. Naime, posto se Uhaziti povukao na teritoriju Ahijava jedan od njegovih sinova (Tapalazunaulis) se vratio u Arzavu. Tom prilikom jedva se spasao ali jedan od Mursilijevih bogova (Sunce) je zarobio njegovu zenu i decu i uzeo ih je za svoju vojsku (trupe i konjicu).
Da je Mursili bio rekao "za sluzbu u hramu" ovo ne bi bio kljucni propust tumaca, ali ovako je sasvim jasno da je rec o vladarima koje Mursili stavlja u rang bogova. Naime do izuzetne ekspanzije Mursilija je i doslo tako sto iako omalovazavan zbog mladosti on nije podlegao umisljenoj nerazboritosti nego se bio obratio za pomoc daleko mocnijima, kako od sebe tako i od svojih neprijatelja.
Osnovna strategija sastojala se u tome da su znatan broj puta pre Mursilijevoga napada na scenu prvo stupali Arinna, Tarhus, Mezzullas i ostali bogovi.
Naravno sa time da je Mursili bio spreman da sve sto mu Arinna nalozi on i izvrsi.
Gospodari sami po sebi imaju silu. U maloazijskoj gunguli gospodarima se svidelo uptavo to sto je Mursili bio dete svesno svoje slabasnosti. Njihov izbor je pao na vladara cije vojne resurse je poharala kuga, i koji se nasao okruzen obesnim psima. Verovatnoca lojalnosti i discipline ponasanja do smrti u njegovom slucaju bila je najveca. To je psiholosko-"matematicki" deo zakona. Personalno-psiholoski deo bio je njegov inicijalni predlog njima. On je bio u startu izrazio volju na pravi nacin. Sto je bio kljuc za obostrano razumevanje.

Sada kada pogledamo opasnost koja se bila nadvila na krajnoj granici Ahajaca, mogu biti jasne najmanje dve stvari.
a) Prvo, zasto je Ajajcima bila poslednja briga da nama objasne svoju poziciju u istoriji.
b) I drugo, da Jezekilj nije toliko truda ulozio da sto detaljnje opise izgled letelice koju koriste Ahajci (sto se inace u tekstovima vrlo retko dogadja) ni nas radi ni istorijske promocije Ahajaca radi, nego radi sebi bliznjih drustveno-politickih snaga..
Jer na nebu mozda nije bilo guzve, ali se tuda kretalo i nesto tudjih gospodara.
Kako je izgledalo kada se sukobe... citajte u Ramajani i Mahabharati.
Sami su se sebe grozili.
Biblijska prica je otpocela sa znanjem o atomskoj pecurki (drvetu zla) jer znanje ako nije atomsko (poznavanje mikro sveta) ono je cisto fiktivno, i u njemu nema mesta za titule "bogova" niti za dogadjaje dostojne da im eho potresa buduce milenijume. Istinsko znanje je ozbiljna stvar. A jedino istinsko znanje je detaljno poznavanje zakona ponasanja materije. Ko tome znanju ne prizna znacenje istine, taj Bibliju, ili bilo koju knjigu, moze okretati kakogod hoce i redjati joj slova na bezbroj nacina... nikada i nista procitati nece.

Njajjednostavnije receno problem nama raspolozivih tekstova nikada nije u njihovoj namernoj tajnovitosti, nego u tome sto su oni u prvobitnoj originalnoj formi stilski i informativno uvek namenjeni savremenickoj okolini koja o tome vec zna po nesto, i koju se to jedino direktno i tice.
Medjutim ovakvi tekstovi ne mogu biti nikakav nepremostiv problem kada se shvati da je njihova sustina:
odnos oimedju onih koji imaju znajje, i onih koji nemaju znanje.
Oni koji imaju znanje titulirani su kao bogovi, a oni koji nemaju znanje titulirani su kao ljudi.
To je jednacina u kojoj nema nepoznatih.

Sustina je kristalno jasna.
Problem je u tome sto oni koji nemaju znanje imaju brojcanju vecinu. Primat filozofije nad znanjem je u svakom trenutku mogao da se izglasa, cak i u brojnim sukobima izmedju mizerije kao sto je egipatsko roblje i velicine kao sto je Mojskije, i to pred licem kovcega zaveta (pred licem samih Ahijava, dok ih je bilo, i dok su licno dolazili da bi tutnjali iz oblaka , bas i ne u potpunosti, ali i tu se razum morao lomiti da li da sa lica zemlje zbrise do sada ulozeni trud ili da ga prolongira, kada je vec toliko sredstava i vremena bilo investirano) - ali nikada nije mogao da se ostvari.
Kada se sniva "san" on mora biti u projektnim proracunima budnih, a ne u pustoj zelji spavaca.

Pitanje je uvek bilo: biti ili ne biti. Samo sta je to san a sta je java? Jer bez Ahijava budilnik ne radi.
Mi zivimo u snovima... Laku noc i prijatno. Ako i imate kakvu nesanicu, ne brinite. Savladace vas umor.





.

BACK to HOME




MMX - MMXI Aeris - Copyright © 2010 - 2011