Efimok coin, Fomenko's phantom time and added 1,000 years of history

OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
Contents being the same is a pure speculation. There is no possible way to know that. The only possible way to find out what you have is to verify your copy against the original.

I am not going to debate metters of faith or personal believes, only facts.
Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71). As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks. Jews are not known to have preserved the writings of Josephus
Source: Josephus - Wikipedia

Unfortunately the issue goes way beyond Mr. Flavius. This pertains to every single person of Antiquity you may know. No originals survived. Not a single copy was discovered prior to 1418, and normally those copies are dated between 9th and 11th centuries, or later.

This issue has been extensively discussed and n this forum. One of the topics is below.

The History of Rome has no Surviving Sources

But it goes way beyond Rome.

I can not convince you in the significance of the absence of ALL the original sources of our alleged antiquity. Things like that are personal preferences and we are free to believe in whatever we want.

For me this absence means that we were not meant to see the originals, only the copies we were. I am well past the point of looking hard for a justification of why out of tens, may be hundreds of thousands of original ancient texts there is not a single survivor to tell me about some prominent Ancient figure.

1418 my friend, that’s the date after which Mr. Flavius copies were discovered. I have not checked for him specifically because all of them Ancient texts came to our knowledge after 1418.

And the main idea behind this long post of mine. We could certainly use sources like copies of the copies of the copies for building time frames and such, but credibility of such time frames would be very low, for there is no way to prove the authenticity of the texts.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
You shouldn't go by mainstream time period, because we don't even know which century we are living in. Wikipedia also contains great deal of false information. So I wouldn't use it as a source of information either.

With Josephus' work Judean Wars Book Six in Aramaic (aka Syriac), it is certainly the work of a scholar who is fluent in Aramaic (aka Syriac). The information is provided in a consistent manner while in Greek version of Book Six, it adds lots of information (by an inexperienced scribe) not found in Aramaic version creating inconsistencies. Religiously speaking, Aramaic version of Josephus is also consistent with Aramaic New Testament.

But let's focus on Roman Empire. We do know that there was a Roman Empire. For example, We have the coins of Roman Emperors and Roman artefacts found throughout the world. Aside from Josephus' writings, we also have Roman contracts and documents listed under Hadrian which is mentioned by Archaeologist Yigael Yadin in detail on his book on Bar Kokhba.

Greek and Roman Historians are not reliable since they do have the habit of tampering with history which is well explained by Josephus in his works.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
But let's focus on Roman Empire. We do know that there was a Roman Empire.
Let’s focus on the Roman Empire in a thread dedicated to the Roman Empire. I have this feeling that I could successfully debate that there was no Roman Empire as we know it but it would be totally outside of the scope of this thread.

Wikipedia contains no more lies than our history textbooks. It’s a good source to push off of when researching a topic, for you normally know that things are probably the opposite from what it says.

I was not talking about conventional time frames, I was talking about the original documents. A fake can be written by an educated scholar fulfilling an order of some ruler, or to sell it, for everything antique was always expensive and in turn profitable.

Why is it important to have originals? Here is why: Donation of Constantine: importance of original documents

Without the original documents, things become a matter of one’s personal belief.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
578
Reactions
2,628
Mainstream people are coming to the conclusion that the middle ages never happened.

Newton came to a similar conclusion of a missing 1000 years.
He was an obvious enlightenment deceiver, but after death publication adds some credibility.

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended is an approximately 87,000-word composition written by Sir Isaac Newton, first published posthumously in 1728 in limited supply.

The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Kingdoms_Amended.png
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
Yes, we can discuss about Roman Empire in the thread you mentioned.

I don't follow both wikipedia and history text books. They are both unreliable.

With Josephus, Aramaic version of Judean Wars Book Six is certainly copy of the original. Just look at it historically.

Why is it that there is no Hebrew version of Josephus' Judean Wars? We only see Aramaic version of Book Six, Greek version, and translated versions (for example, Latin) from Greek.

This is because Hebrews didn't speak Hebrew in first century Israel. Aramaic was the language of Hebrews in first century Israel and early second century Israel. According to Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Hebrews until Hebrew was revived during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 135 AD) against Roman Empire Hadrian and Romans.

Hebrew revived during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 135 AD) was Mishnaic Hebrew which had massive influences from Aramaic.

Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 135 AD).

In his book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state"(page 181).

In the book "A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)" by Sigalit Ben-Zion (page 155), Yadin said: "it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state."

In both New Testament and Josephus' works, we see several names starting with Aramaic word "Bar" for son ("Bar"tholomew, "Bar"abbas, "Bar"nabbas, Simon "Bar" Jonah, "Bar"sabbas, "Bar" Timaeus, "Bar" Yaqub, etc.)

But not a single name in Hebrew word “Ben” which is the Hebrew word for Son. Below contains details of original documents written during Bar Kokhba revolt. Bar Kosiba is popular known as Bar Kokhba.

Here is an early letter written in Aramaic (Below information from Yigael Yadin's article Expedition D (Cave of Letters) - Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 12, No. 3-4, THE EXPEDITION TO THE JUDEAN DESERT, 1961 (1962), pp. 249-250). [ ] in Simeon below is probably referring to damaged portion of the scroll.

Document 42 - "On the first day of Iyyar, in the first year of the redemption of Israel [by Simeo]n Bar Kosiba, Prince of Israel.“

But when the letters started to be written in Hebrew in later years, Bar Kosiba in Aramaic became Ben Kosiba in Hebrew. Here is an example.

Document 44 - "On the 28th of Marheshvan, in the third year of Simeon Ben Kosiba, Prince of Israel; at Engedi."
.
Yigael Yadin mentions that 3 Bar Kokhba documents he and his team found at Nahal Hever are written in Mishnaic Hebrew (The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1961), Pg. 93).

I am familiar with Isaac Newton's book on it. I learned about it couple of years ago when I learned about Phantom Time Hypothesis which was promoted by Heribert Illig who said that the time period of 614 AD to 911 AD never happened.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
With Josephus, Aramaic version of Judean Wars Book Six is certainly copy of the original. Just look at it historically.
Just like I said before, I can not debate hypotheticals. You have nothing to back this statement up with other than your opinion. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. I honestly have no clue how to look at things historically with no sources available.

Your Book Six copy was discovered some time in the 15th century. Close to 1500 years after the original was allegedly written. I have zero confidence that it did not get altered or entirely made up within this period.

If we are indeed experiencing a chronological shift, and Flavius and the rest of them existed let’s say 200 years before the copies were discovered... well this way I would be even more confident that the copies are either entirely fake, or contain considerably altered contents. 200 years would not be enough for all the originals to vanish on their own.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
What I stated are facts with evidences. Just like you pointed out, you have a hard time believing it. That is where the problem is.

The content of the document clearly revealed that it was copy of what Josephus wrote in first century AD. The language was Aramaic and I know Aramaic.

From the time period of Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD to 135 AD), Hebrews switched back to Hebrew.

Second, the names with Aramaic "Bar" (found in Aramaic NT and Josephus' Judean Wars Book Six) began to convert into Hebrew "Ben" since Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 135 AD).

Aramaic names like "Yoseph" (as in Yosephus), "Yokhnan", etc. (found in Aramaic NT and Josephus' Judean Wars Book Six) were converted into Hebrew form "Yehoseph", "Yehochanan", etc. since Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD to 135 AD).

If Judean Wars in Aramaic was a document written in later time period, then it would have had heavy influences of Hebrew. But it didn't.

You used the keyword "discovered." That doesn't mean that it was written in 15th century. We don't know how much time period has passed between the time period of Josephus and the so called 15th century AD you mentioned.

Bar Kokhba letters were discovered in 20th century. Does that mean that they were only written in 20th century? No. This is because of sufficient evidences provided in the documents.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
I’m saying that prior to the 15th century, for 1,500 years this world had zero clue of its antiquity. They were not finding no copies, no statues, nada. And then the flood gate opened, and stayed opened.

If there were no 1500 years in between, than we should have tons of originals, which is not the case.

Speculating that this or thst copy is an exact representation of a non existent original which has never been seen is just that - a speculation? Could it be? It sure could, but we will never find out unless the original pops up.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
Aramaic originals will not pop up. Why? because Greeks were doing everything they could to destroy them. That is why we only have one surviving manuscript of Aramaic Revelation.

Greeks eliminated Arameans (aka Syrians) and replaced it with Greeks in New Testament. They also tried to inject Greek into Josephus' works in Greek.

In Greek New Testament and its translations, You don't see any mention of Arameans just like Tartary was eliminated from history. You see a similar pattern.

Just look at these below examples.

1) Acts 20:21 (NIV) - "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus."

Acts 20:21 (from Aramaic Eastern Peshitta) - "While I was testifying to the Judeans and to the Arameans about returning to God and the faith in Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah."

2) Acts 19:17 (KJV) - "And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified."

Acts 19:17 (from Aramaic Eastern Peshitta) - "And this became known to all the Judeans and Arameans living in Ephesus and great fear fell upon all of them, and the name of Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah was exalted."

Notice how Arameans were changed into Greeks. I mentioned this, because we see a similar pattern with tartary and other histories that were deleted.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
Appears we are speaking different languages here. Contents of an alleged copy discovered 1500 years after the original was written mean exactly that - the copy has some contents listed in it.

Is this the copy of the original, or a copy of a copy of a copy of 650 other copies?

How do we even know there was ever an original?

What would have prevent some scholar from making it up in the 10th century for example?

That’s why copies are unreliable, they have non original to verify them agains. Only one’s personal beliefs.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
Of Course, it is the copy of the original. That is why I told you to observe the content. I have been researching on this topic for decades.

Copies are reliable if they completely agree with history of the time period.

In this case, copy follows the history of First century Israel accurately.

You will see that the names and the linguistic style are all Aramaic. Not Hebrew which was revived during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 135 AD) and later was used to write Mishnah.

Let's imagine Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Lets just imagine that we only have exact copy of the original which was written in 1890 and Original got destroyed in a fire in 1900. But we have a Spanish translation of gettysburg address which was written in 1865.

But we will pick the exact copy of the original since those were the exact words of Lincoln just happen to be preserved in a newer manuscript.
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
Hypotheticals? A couple days prior to burning your original I replaced your only two authentic copies with the ones of my own, with slightly different contents but proper linguistic values. I simply replaced a few words: robots with slaves, excavator with a shovel, machine with a sled, an airplane with a fiery bird. I hid the copies for 1000 years, after which they were allowed to be rediscovered. The original was about how pyramids of Egypt were built.

Without the original there is no way to establish authenticity of a copy.

We just go in circles now. It appears you think you have a 100% correct copy of the original based on the contents of your copy. Contents match your understanding of how things should have been 2000 years ago.

Is your understanding based on the originals or on the copies miraculously discovered in the 15th century along with the entire antiquity?

I think you have a text you were allowed to have with zero evidence of the prior existence of the original. An alleged copy discovered approximately 1500 years after the events.

We have two different opinions which is ok.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
Facts. Not Hypotheticals. Estrangela alphabet was used as the script for Aramaic for several centuries before your so called imaginative 15th century theory. There is no evidence that there is 1500 years gap between the time period of Josephus and the so called 15th century you are promoting.

The authenticity of the copy can be acknowledged through the words and the usage of the language used in first century AD which was Aramaic. It is quite easy to recognize the originality when Aramaic version is compared with Greek and Latin version.

On the top of that, You wouldn't say Yokhanan or Yoseph in second century AD and later centuries. You use Yehochanan and Yehoseph in second century AD and Ben replaced Bar as well.

Religiously speaking, the authenticity can also be confirmed by the fact that how Aramaic version strengthen the words of Jesus Christ accurately on Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Pharisaism eventually ended up becoming Judaism with the completion of Babylonian Talmud.
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
Are you saying that your knowledge of this language topic is unique, and nobody in the 10-15th centuries possessed the same knowledge?

And I did say it before several times already, if there was no 1500 year time gap, there should be authentic originals laying on every shelf, but we don't have any.
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
I also answered those points already. Like I pointed out, there were attempts to destroy the originals just like they later tried to destroy Tartaria and its history.

So the copies of the originals were made which survived by the grace of God. I am not the only one who has the unique knowledge of this language topic. People who know very well about Aramaic Eastern Peshitta know this as well.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
Considering that none of the originals exist, and that includes every known ancient person, it's fairly obvious that they either got destroyed, stored in a secret place, or never existed.
I am not the only one who has the unique knowledge of this language topic. People who knows very well about Aramaic Eastern Peshitta know this as well.
This way answer a simple question. What could prevent somebody to create this documents in the 11th century from scratch and pass it for a copy of a non existent ancient document?
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
Why do you think they were written in 11th century? Like I said, we don't know the time period when it was written. 11th century AD is just an assumption.

Second, Judean Wars Book Six written in Aramaic was exactly a copy of original. This Aramaic is basically known as Middle Aramaic

If it was written many centuries later without using an original, then it would have had the influence of Arabic. With the arrival of Islam, Arabic was favored over Aramaic and many Arabic words were loaned into Aramaic as well. This Aramaic is also called Late Aramaic.

Middle Aramaic (found in Judean Wars Book Six) is found in the time period of Maccabees and it goes till the end of Nabatean Kingdom in 106 AD.

A Language also changes from time to time. It is not just with Aramaic. For example, transformation from Middle English to Modern English. When you read John Wycliffe's Bible, you can see the differences between Modern English and Middle English used in Wycliffe's Bible.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,717
Reactions
13,977
How do you think they were written in 11th century?
I think they were written in the 15th. The most prolific forgery century of them all. And the whole idea of forging a document is to make it look real. Some come out better than others.

Taken as a whole, medieval monks and clerics were probably the most prolific forgers of all time. For centuries they controlled access to official documents, placing them in a perfect position to alter or forge those documents, should they so desire. And judging by the volume of their output, they evidently did so desire. What's more, their superiors could be counted on to overlook, or even approve, any textual inventions that benefitted the Church.

Papal bulls were a frequent object of forgery. In one notorious case, a count of Armagnac bribed a papal official to produce a fake papal bull allowing him to marry his sister. Letters, church histories, lives of saints, and deeds to land were other common creations of clerical forgers.

Almost all of these forgeries went undetected for centuries until the revival of historical scholarship that began during the Renaissance. As the vast scope of the deception gradually became evident, some scholars began to wonder whether there were any medieval church documents whose authenticity could be trusted. In 1675 the Jesuit scholar Daniel van Papenbroeck published his conclusion that all ancient deeds were falsifications created by eleventh-century monks. His announcement brought the wrath of the Church down upon him, and a few years later he humbly begged forgiveness for his doubt. Another seventeenth-century scholar, Jean Hardouin, became convinced that the majority of classical Greek and Roman literature, as well as all extant Greek and Roman coins, had actually been forged by medieval Benedictine monks. Hardouin declared that when he died he would he would leave behind a scrap of paper on which was written the reason why the monks had committed this forgery. Unfortunately, Hardouin's mysterious scrap of paper was never found.

Medieval Forgery
 

Tabor7

New member
Messages
29
Reactions
51
If they were forged in recent centuries, then it would have been written in Late Aramaic. Not Middle Aramaic. Middle Aramaic grew out of use by late 2nd century AD.
 

Top