by
Damien F. Mackey
Human
history is in need of a massive renovation!
I
already knew this as far as BC time was concerned, having written two
postgraduate theses; the one towards dismantling
(http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1632) the conventional system, and then my
effort later towards the reconstruction
(http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973) of BC time.
So, why should I now presume that AD time has been solidly
established?
Most assuredly, I do not. Had I not written in my:
Osman's ‘Osmosis’ of Moses
that: “… one should nevertheless expect the chronological
earthquake caused by [Dr. Immanuel] Velikovsky to be still transmitting
aftershocks right down the line, so as to plunge late BC events into an AD time
frame”.
And, indeed, a start has already been made to apply a
Velikovskian revolution to AD time as well. Thus certain Velikovskians,
acutely aware of the problems posed by convention for the securing of BC time,
have now begun also to question the AD matrix, especially the so-called ‘Dark
Age’ period.
To my mind, one of the great achievements of Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky in his pioneering Ages in
Chaos series – {his system of
revision is far from perfect, however} - was to have exposed the so-called
‘Dark Ages’ of antiquity (c. 1200-700 BC) as being an artificial padding to
enable for an over-extended (Sothic-based) Egyptian chronology to harmonise
with the shorter Greek (and other) chronologies.
See my summary of Sothic theory, in:
The Fall of the Sothic Theory:
Egyptian Chronology Revisited
Now some, mainly German, Velikovskians (e.g. Dr. Hans-Ulrich
Niemitz, Heribert Illig, Uwe Topper) have applied the same sort of revisionist
principles (e.g. real history’s need for an underlying stratigraphy) to the
presumed Dark Age phase of AD 614–911 - in the early part of which the prophet
Mohammed (c. 570-632) is supposed to have lived. Interested readers might like
to peruse - for a handy summary of this revolutionary new approach to AD time -
Jan Beaufort’s article, “Illig's Hypothesis on
Phantom Times – FAQ” (http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm).
Whilst some, or most, of this new research may turn out to be
just as extreme and flawed as was much of Dr. Velikovsky’s, I must agree with
it at least in principle, that something is seriously wrong with many aspects
of the received AD history. I, trying to make some sense of this, looking to
find a reliable golden thread, so to speak – and especially interested in the
case of the Prophet Mohammed who had begun to seem to me like something of a
composite Israelite (or Jewish) holy man (traces there of Moses; Tobit; Job;
Jeremiah; and Jesus Christ) – nearly fell off my chair when I read for the
first time that there was a “Nehemiah” contemporaneous with said Prophet Mohammed.
OK, no big deal with that, insofar as there are, even today,
people named “Nehemiah”.
But a “Nehemiah” doing just what the biblical Nehemiah had
done?
I have previously written about this:
Now this is a very strange
Afterglow of BC in AD time!
There is a strange interfacing (mirroring) of c. 600 BC [I picked this
round figure for purposes of symmetry only] events with c. 600 AD events,
particularly the appearance of [a] Nehemiah in both cases, serving the Persians
in both cases, in relation to Jerusalem in both cases.
600 BC, approximately, has been sucked all the way forward to 600 AD!
…. One extraordinary case [reference to the Velikovskian aftershocks as
quoted above] that has just come to light for me concerns Nehemiah (thought to
be a Jew) of c. 600 BC.
Now I find that there was a Nehemiah, a Jew, supposedly in 614 AD (the era
of Mohammed), to whom a Persian general had entrusted the city of Jerusalem
(just as “Artaxerxes”, thought to have been an ancient Persian king, had
allowed Nehemiah his cupbearer, the governor, to return to Jerusalem and to
restore the damaged city). This supposedly later Nehemiah “offers a sacrifice on the
site of the Temple”, according to Étienne Couvert (La Vérité sur les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 2nd ed, Éditions de
Chiré, p. 98. My translation).
“He even seems to have attempted to restore the Jewish cult of sacrifice”, says
Maxine Lenôtre (Mahomet Fondateur de
L’Islam, Publications MC, p. 111, quoting from S.W. Baron’s, Histoire d’Israël, T. III, p. 187. My
translation), who then adds (quoting from the same source): “Without any doubt,
a number of Jews saw in these events a repetition of the re-establishment of
the Jewish State by Cyrus and Darius [C6th BC kings of ancient Persia] and
behaved as the rulers of the city and of the country”.
Whilst this is quite a penetrating observation as far as it goes, I think
that the conclusion ought actually to go far deeper even than this. This
“Nehemiah, a Jew”, I now suggest, was none other than the original Nehemiah
himself, “the governor”, of the OT Book of Nehemiah. He was not ‘repeating the
re-establishment of the Jewish state by Cyrus and Darius’, but was the very one
who had prophetically envisioned it!
He has been sucked all the way forward to 600 AD!
And Mohammed, orginally an Old Testament prophet, has been curiously
metamorphosised into a C7th AD Arabian prophet.
[End of article]
A “Nehemiah” practically mirror-imaging the Nehemiah of about a millennium earlier!
And,
what was the Persian empire doing there all over again about a millennium after
it had been overrun by that irresistible conqueror Alexander the Great?
The
incredible irony of it all, I believe, is that Islam does not know who its
Prophet Mohammed really was!
The
truth about the “Prophet Mohammed” is that he was originally a BC character of
the era of the Chaldean and Persian empires, whose person and era have somehow
(and the ‘mechanism’ whereby this has happened must await a proper
understanding and revision of AD history) been projected into a (perhaps not
inappropriately called) ‘Dark Age’, supposedly in AD time.
And
the same comment applies to the biblical Nehemiah. (And to who knows who
else?).
Down
through the centuries (depending upon how many there actually are in real AD
time), the Prophet, and the religion that he originally espoused - pure
Yahwism, for sure - and the Bible, have filtered through Arabia (with its own
unique flavours and interpretations), picked up Samaritan - and even,
anachronistically, Christian - elements. Correspondingly, with the Hebrew
Scriptures, that have re-emerged, metamorphosised and quite transformed, as the
Koran (Qur’an) of Islam.
I
intend to write much more about all of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment