THE THEORY OF THE VENETI IN SLOVENIA: A Problem of History, Historiography or Ideology?
Filip
yourself. Sometimes the reviewers comments are quite valid, sometimes not
necessarily true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not you could read
the book and make up your own mind. I find the topic very interesting. Jim
Dangel]
http://dangel.net/SloveniaSection/VenetiReviewBernard.html
THE THEORY OF THE VENETI IN SLOVENIA
A Problem of History, Historiography or Ideology?
By Antonia Bernard
Translation from French coordinated by Anton Škerbinc
The state of Slovenia was founded on the 25th of June 1991. It is evident
that this political act of enormous significance for Slovenes did not come
about overnight, but was the result of a long process of maturation which
began more than two centuries ago. It is natural that such an act should be
accompanied by - besides political actions such as free elections the
breakdown of Communist Yugoslavia and the victory of the Opposition - a deep
soul-searching concerning politics as such, the idea of nationhood or
history. These reflections were not restricted to the intellectual elites;
they extended into many other communities within the broader population.
History thus represents an important part of soul-searching involving the
community; it is the base on which rests the national conscience. The newly
acquired freedom that now can be exercised in so many areas cannot ignore
history with its different strata, from the most recent events to the most
ancient ones strata that the writers of history have often considered as set
in stone, although they are very much alive and sensitive to the present
realities.
The Venetic theory, that emerged in Slovenia at the beginning of the eighties
at a crucial moment of the national existence, is the stereotypical example
of this questioning of historical truths that are considered firmly
established. Or is it only an echo of the time? Does it have to remain as a
temporary trend for a nation, proud and happy, to find a new interpretation
of its past. Or could it be of interest to the specialists and lead them down
new avenues of investigation? How does this theory fit into the written
history of Slovenia? Does it demand changes in interpretations?
In Slovenia, this new vision of the past gives rise to furious polemics. It
separates the historiographic establishment from a part of the population and
underlines the divisions within the society as a whole. It raises a
considerable number o f strictly scientific issues but also issues that are
political, ideological, and sociological. Amongst the Slovenes abroad,
notably those in Austria and Italy, as well as amongst the sympathisers of
the Spring parties and the Catholics one can find many supporters of this
theory; whereas the old Communists reject it with their last ounce of energy.
Beyond its strictly scientific content, the Venetic theory acts as a catalyst
for political and ideological division.
Having neither the familiarity nor the experience of having studied these
questions in depth, I will present here only the main points.
The first articles relating to the new theory of the history of the ancient
Slovenes appeared in the early 1980s in the Slovenian journal of Vienna Glas
Korotana, founded and directed by Rev. Ivan Tomazic. The articles mentioned
"Slovenian symbols" including the linden tree, the black panther and the
Ducal Throne of Carinthia. Obviously, at that time in Slovenia - still,
nominally Communist and solidly in the Yugoslav fold - these kinds of
articles would have endangered any publication, just like the "secessionist"
writings of Boris Pahor in Trieste. Finally, the sum of these historical
studies was published in 1988 in Vienna in German, under the title Our
Ancestors the Veneti.1 The book was immediately translated into Slovenian and
published in Ljubljana, Slovenia.2 The following year, The Slovenian State of
Carantanla was published by three publishing houses in Vienna, Koper and
Ljubljana.3 The works generated a widespread response in the Slovenian media,
but also abroad (Frakfurter Allgemeine, Die Welt, La Stampa, etc.). Three
more works containing refinements, updates, excerpts of reviews and responses
to critics have been published since, as well as a digest of the principal
theses, destined for the public at large.4 The first book was recently
translated into Italian and English.
One should emphasize that the authors, including the two who do not live in
Slovenia, do not have formal training as historians, and therefore have no
ties to the History Department at the University of Ljubljana. Ivan Tomazic
was born in 1919 in the Karst region of Slovenia, occupied by Italy between
the First World War and the Second World War. He studied theology in Spain
and Rome, and entered the priesthood [19431. Later he moved to Vienna,
Austria, where he started an association to help students of Slovenian
background, mainly from Carinthia. Jozko Šavli, born in 1943 in Tolmin,
Slovenia, studied in Ljubljana, and received his Ph. D. in Social Studies In
Vienna. He now teaches in Gorizia, Italy. Matej Bor (1913 - 1996), born near
Gorizia, studied Slavistics in Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is mostly known as a
poet, a writer, and a dramatist of the Resistance, which means that he was,
more or less, an official author. He was the president of the Union of
Slovenian writers and a member of the Slovenian Academy. Later in life he
devoted himself more specifically to linguistic studies, and it is he who
undertook an interpretation of the Venetic inscriptions. However, even if one
of the authors were part of the establishment, we must first and foremost
underline that this new vision of Slovenian history was generated entirely
outside the institutions of professional historiography.
So, what is this Venetic theory that provokes so much enthusiasm in one camp
and so much contempt and sarcasm in the other? Generally it is considered
that the Slovenes are descendants of the Slavs who in the 6th century arrived
as far as the eastern foothills of the Alps. Supported by a few documentary
sources this hypothesis is upheld by present-day Slovenian scholars, as well
as those who, after [the Czech] Šafarik [r with inverted hat], have studied
the ancient history of the Slavs. These historians paid very little attention
to the Slovenes because they simply did not recognize them as a separate
people. Bogo Grafenauer, an authority in Slovenia, considers that two
migrations took place - one through the Balkans and the other from the north
- and occupied a territory much larger than the Slovenian lands of today.5
However, many questions remain unanswered, and the little that is known can
be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, the ancient authors
generally speak of their neighbours as "Veneti". Opinions differ as to whom
they refer. Certain historians have presented as fact a link between "Veneti"
and "Slavs": others separate "Veneti" from "Venedi"; yet others deny all
connections between "Veneti" and "Slavs". The Lusatian culture, well known on
account of the rich archaeological discoveries of relatively recent times,
remains itself an enigma: "It bas been impossible till now, despite numerous
theories, to determine to which people it should be attributed."6 On the
other hand, there is not one Slavic people from the Baltic to the Adriatic
who bas not tried to claim connection with the "Veneti" or to resolve the
"Venetic mystery". The question is the more troubling as one can locate the
Veneti in several European and Asian places without being able to establish a
connection between them.
It would be dishonest to say that the three authors claim that the Slovenes
descend directly from the Veneti. However, they energetically refute the idea
that their Slavic ancestors came from the marshlands east of the Carpathians
during the 6th century. On the contrary, they see themselves as the original
inhabitants who lived in the area before the Roman Empire. This is how Ivan
Tomazic explains the theory:
"My intention is to present in this publication in a clear and accessible
manner, important evidence showing that we Slovenes are people rooted in
central Europe since time immemorial. We created our own social system. and
the first form of statehood before the Roman times (Noric Kingdom). We
reestablished them in the Middle Ages, and we have maintained the same
foundations of social and judicial organization in the traditions of our
village community up to modern times." 7
The authors reject all connections of this civilisation with the Slavs beyond
the Carpathians, but they do link it to the Venetic culture of Lusatia, and
with the brilliant Venetic culture of northern Italy. As far as the authors
are concerned, this civilisation survived despite Romanization in the Noric
kingdom. The latter was succeeded by the Principality of Carantania, which
itself survived the Frankish conquest in the 9th century and continued into
modern times.8
To argue against the arrival of the Slavs into the Slovenian regions, the
three authors use the same meager sources as the historians who accept this
thesis, but give the sources an opposite interpretation. The most important
documentary source is The History of Langobards (Historia Langobardorum),
written in 797 AD by the learned monk Paulus Diaconus. He devoted several
lines to the attacks by the Avars, the Langobards, and the Slavs on the
territory of Istria, then under Byzantine control. Tomazic considers these
Slavs to be mercenaries. Elsewhere Diaconus speaks of the incursion of the
Bavarians into the "Sclavorum provincia". According to him, the Bavarians
returned with a rich bounty. For the supporters of the Venetic theory these
two statements prove the existence In that territory of a rich constitutional
state ("provincia" is used elsewhere for "state"). To create such a state
would have been impossible in a mountainous region in one or two generations
after the arrival of "barbarians" from the Pripet swamps. "We conclude from
his writings that the Slovenes were indigenous inhabitants, and therefore
that they were the ancient Veneti."9
The Fredegarii Chronicon supports their thesis, since in 623 AD it equates
the Veneti with the Slavs: "Sclavi coinomento Vinedos", and speaks of the
"marca Winedorum" and the Walucus dux Winedorum". The same theme occurs in
the "Vitae S. Columbani", where the author speaks of the "Country of the
Veneti who consider themselves also Slavs" [Termini Venetiorum qui et Sclavi
dicuntur].
Thus, where historians habitually find confusion in the classification of
neighbouring, little known people, our authors hold a contrary view regarding
this identification of the Veneti and the West Slavs. Also, we should
remember that the Germans and the Hungarians have always used the name Veneti
to designate Slovenes even though it was a derogatory term.10
Once the idea of Veneti/Slavs became plausible on account of the
interpretation of historical sources, our authors attempt to reinforce it
with etymology, through the toponymy [study of place names], and above all
through the interpretation of the numerous inscriptions belonging to the
Este-Etruscan civilisation. We first find the map of Friuli - a region
[northeastern Italy] where the Venetic/Slavic language had to yield to the
spreading of Latin. There, the Slavic toponyms are very numerous: Gorizza,
Sclavons, Gradisca, Sella, etc., in different forms. The [official] Slovenian
historians customarily account for these place-names by pointing to the
forced settlement of peasants from Slovenian territory under the jurisdiction
of the Patriarchs of Aquilea. According to our authors, these toponyms date
back to Roman times, just as do for example Tergeste, Tergolape or Oderzo,
based on the Slavic word "trg, terg" [market town].
However. these toponyms extend much farther to the west; they are found
wherever the settlement of the Veneti is documented. Thus, there is Bregenz
(from bregec dim. of breg - shore) on the shore of "Lacus Venetus" [Lake
Constance]. Drava [river] is derived from dreti, derti - to rush, same as the
name of the river Derotchia in Switzerland. Cervino comes from cer; in the
name of the mountain chain Pie de la Meije one could find the root of meja,
meza. In the Hohe Tauren, our authors have drawn attention to a multitude of
interesting names: besides the Grossvenediger, there are Pösch, Pötschah,
Pötschenjoch, from pec--rock; Dober, Daber Alm, Daber Spitz, from
deber--narrow valley, canyon, etc.11
But the authors go even further. They try to explain certain words from
Brittany in light of their theory. It is true - one finds Veneti in the south
of Brittany. From the similarity between Breiz and breg they conclude that
the origin of this name could be Venetic/Slavic. They indicate other
similarities of vocabulary: ozaac'h, ocak--ancestor; marc'h, marha, mrha--
beast, etc. 12
Without a doubt, the most audacious proposals found in these works emanate
from the writings of Matej Bor, who undertook the study of the Atestine
tablets in light of the Venetic theory. Here the justification becomes much
more difficult, because if Bor's thesis were to be proven correct, it would
be in opposition to many studies already published in this field. Eminent
international specialists, such as C. Pauli (Leipzig), H. Krahe (Jena,
Germany), G. B. Pellegrini, A. L. Prosdocimi (Italy) or M. Lejeune (France),
studied these inscriptions and classified them. They interpreted them as
containing traces of the Illyrian language, but generally, it was thought
that they represented mostly names of people. Bor studied these inscriptions
one by one, letter by letter, giving priority to those found in Slovenian
territory, notably on a jar found in 1911 at Škocjan. Bor believes there are
Venetic/Slavic words and sentences on it. At the same time, he also offers a
new interpretation of what the Venetologists call "tabule alphabetiche", in
which he identifies a table setting out the grammar of the verb jekati
(compared to the Slovenian verbs jekniti, odjekniti). 13
As for Jozko Šavli, he contests a delicate point of Slovenian history the
absence of historicity. If it is generally agreed that an embryonic Slovenian
state, the Principality of Carantania, existed between the 7th and the 9th
centuries, it follows that this state fell first under the domination of the
Bavarians and later the Hapsburgs, and that there is no real continuity
between Carantania and the modern Slovenia. It should be remembered that
Carantanian territory lies now [largely] within the boundaries of Austria.
Šavli tries to establish a continuity by basing it on the pre-Roman Venetic
culture, which according to him, persisted in the kingdom of Noricum, which
was the predecessor of Carantania. The state of Carantania continued to
exist. he says, until 1728 through the act of allegiance to the Hapsburgs.14
This is to say that the Slovenes would have been organically and politically
connected as an historic element to the Hapsburg state. He insists on the
fact that the feudal families such as the Eppenstein, the Spanheim, the
Auersperg, et al., were of native Slovenian stock,15 and that the continuity
of the state was based on feudal rights, not on language.16 From Šavli's
point of view this continuity is also supported by symbols such as the black
panther, which adorned the coat-of-arms of Carantania, but would have been of
Venetic origin because it was found carved on rocks in the territory of
ancient Noricum, dating from Roman times.17 Amongst the symbols transmitted
from generation to generation, he recognizes the linden tree, "tree of the
Veneti", the bee [apis mellifica carnica] or the wide-brimmed hat.
It is difficult to summarize in a few lines this abundance of hypotheses, of
which some appear at first completely plausible, whereas others seem to be
pure fantasy. For some of these the authors cite sources, and for some they
rely more on their imagination or intuition. One can sense that it is the
work of amateurs, unaccustomed to scholarly procedure. The facts and the
ideas are intermingled and over-interpreted in a disorderly fashion which
resembles something baroque, quaint rather than a rationally constructed
thesis.
However, we should be aware that these theories that unite the Slavs and the
Veneti in former times, if even considered by other West Slavs, notably the
Poles, do not represent anything new for the Slovenes. At the beginning of
this century J. Mal, H. Tuma, and D. Trstenjak undertook some research in
this direction. For the first Slovenian historians such as J. V. Valvasor
(1641-93) or A. T. Linhart (1756-95) there was no doubt about the identity
between Veneti, Slavs and the residents of the Carniola [Slovenia]. In France
we find this certainty with C. Robert. The idea of Slavic settlement on the
Dalmatian coast before Romanization is also found in the work of Orbini.18
In all cases, the three authors raise a considerable quantity of problems.
questions, and hypotheses. First of all, we can reproach them in a general
sense: they claim to have resolved, as if by magic, the problems that have
plagued the specialists for more than a century, and then they affirm with
the characteristic candour of amateurs, that they have thrown light on
obscure points. The staff of an entire academy would be needed to tackle so
many issues at the same time. But we also have to admit that the questions
discussed here are part of a larger sphere of the past that bas been hardly
studied; it is not just Slovenian, but common to this region where the
cultures and the people overlap each other. And Slovenian historiography is
relatively young.
On the other hand, and this reaches beyond matters that are strictly
historical, these works are part of our age and they highlight the problem of
writing history after the fall of Communism. For the Slovenes, the removal of
the Marxist yoke, even though it was less of a burden than elsewhere.
contributed to the emergence of their statehood. Suddenly, history
resurfaces, disorganized and disrespectful. Like the three musketeers, our
authors allow themselves to question everything and ride roughshod over
recognised authorities such as F. Kos or B. Grafenauer. who could hardly be
accused of intellectual dishonesty.
And yet, if one approaches these new books from a neutral standpoint and
without fear of inviting ridicule (not too long ago one could have appeared
ridiculous if one did not believe in Marxist historiography, even in some
highly intellectual environments of the so-called free world), one has to
admit that these amateurs bring something like a breath of fresh air to the
Slovenian historiography which until now was idling in its cosy microcosm of
unquestioned absolutes. The authors came in from the periphery at the same
time as [Slovenian] authors from the USA and Argentina came with their banned
publications. Without questioning the great ability of the best Slovenian
historians, nevertheless, one can say that the university historiography,
which was the only one in existence since the last war, had a hard time
resisting the institutionalised dogma. And did it really try to free itself
from it? Whereas theatre and poetry, which admittedly developed partially
outside the influence of the institutions, indulged in an orgy of new,
tolerated freedom. Meanwhile, the historians were content to study the past
in the light of somewhat relaxed Marxist ideology.
The peasant uprisings of the 15th-16th centuries, where the notion of social
class and national identity were Interwoven into a happy marriage, could only
have attracted some historians.19 On the other hand the glorification of
accomplishments of the Communist-led Resistance was not without influence on
one's career! Undeniably, times have been difficult and many subjects were
taboo in the distant past as well as more recently. And man, scholar or not,
survives more easily on bread than on truth.
continues part 2
Full text can be read at the link below:
http://dangel.net/SloveniaSection/VenetiReviewBernard.html
VENETI: FIRST BUILDERS OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY is published by Editiones
Veneti, Vienna 1996, translated and printed in Canada, hardbound with an
attractive dustcover, 534 pages, 150 illustrations, index. Available in the
USA, Australia and other destinations.....
http://dangel.net/SloveniaSection/Veneti.jpg
for fair use only.
--
Filip
Macedonia Headline News: http://network54.com/Realm/MACEDONIA/News.htm
Realm Macedonia: http://network54.com/Realm/MACEDONIA/
Macedonian Forums: http://network54.com/Realm/Macedonian_Forums/
Ancient Mak Music: http://audio.macedonia.org/ra/narodno/teskoto.ram
Eugene Borza (eminent scholar): http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/frame.htm
"Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered...Macedonians to be Greeks."
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=macedonia
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Filip
Filip <mace...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [This is an important review of a book you should have to decide for
> yourself. Sometimes the reviewers comments are quite valid, sometimes not
> necessarily true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not you could read
> the book and make up your own mind. I find the topic very interesting. Jim
> Dangel]
>
> http://dangel.net/SloveniaSection/VenetiReviewBernard.html
>
> THE THEORY OF THE VENETI IN SLOVENIA
> A Problem of History, Historiography or Ideology?
>
> By Antonia Bernard
>
> Translation from French coordinated by Anton Škerbinc
---------------------
part 2
The peasant uprisings of the 15th-16th centuries, where the notion of social
class and national identity were Interwoven into a happy marriage, could only
have attracted some historians.19 On the other hand the glorification of
accomplishments of the Communist-led Resistance was not without influence on
one's career! Undeniably, times have been difficult and many subjects were
taboo in the distant past as well as more recently. And man, scholar or not,
survives more easily on bread than on truth.
Moreover, in past times, the Slovenian people were rather fond of history, at
least in popular or romanticized versions, which explains the success of the
historical novel, and the publication in a popular edition of the first
serious history of Slovenia at the beginning of this century. 20 Under
Communism, the writing of history was discredited in the eyes of the public:
but this did not prevent the publication of very highbrow studies in
specialized and poorly circulated journals. Like everywhere else in the
Communist sphere, students swallowed the official line without question and
took it in stride. For many graduate students, it was better not to question
the established order if one day they wanted to have the precious "Dr." in
front of their name. It would be worn like a medal and signify that they
belonged to the elite of the nation.
Clearly, one cannot assert that ancient history is forbidden territory (for
scholars) even though Tomazic, Šavli, and Bor maintain that their Venetic
theory calls into question Yugoslav unity, which is based, according to them,
on false history taught by professors more concerned with politics than with
truth. But the fact remains that everything that seemed the slightest bit
innovative was not well received. For example, the history of the Slovenes at
the Isonzo [Soca] front [during First World War] was virtually ignored until
the amateur historians began to study it. The period between the wars
remained a "terra incognita", and one had to wait for the advent of
independence to see the publication of the first study about the seizing of
the power by the Communist party.21 So it is hardly surprising that amateurs
replaced professionals and that this occurred at the very moment when freedom
of speech was regained. Some amateurs had already become involved in the
gathering of local and regional historical data (Škofja Loka, Ruše) and
generated compilations, some of which contain extremely interesting and
well-documented studies. These amateurs had a much freer approach. They often
compensated for their lack of methodology with curiosity, for their lack of
knowledge with energy, and an absence of prejudgment or ideological rigidity.
It is therefore difficult to disassociate this history from the period in
which these amateurs worked. Their writings are simply an expression of
freedom regained. Our authors claim not to have been swayed by the
contemporary scene, but their ideas were received by the public in this
context. Besides, they did not escape the vigilance of the political police,
who saw in their books, as well as in the national program published by the
Nova Revija, danger for the established order, that is to say, for Communist
Yugoslavia.22 The Belgrade newspapers protested vigorously, thereby
implicitly granting to the Venetic theory national if not historical
importance.
Changes in the life of a nation have always been accompanied by reflections
about the future as well as the past. Many famous speeches or pamphlets are
proof of it, as for example the "Address to the German Nation" by Fichte, the
"Address to the Nation" by Renan, etc. . They rapidly become incomprehensible
and seem absurd when they are not considered in terms of the time and place
in which they were conceived, On the other hand, historians do participate in
the life of a nation; they love and serve that nation, even if they have to
compromise their scholarly impartiality in order to do so. A nation's history
is never neutral, even the oldest part of it. Just think of the heated
controversies over the origins of the first Russian state.
These three amateur historians are even more immersed in the "context of the
moment", and this national preoccupation appeared everywhere and is
illustrated frequently. Jozko Šavli does not conceal it:
"The problem of the image of Slovenia and its place in the historical
framework, culture, and geography of Europe is related to its historical
position. During the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the Slovenes were considered
to be a people who had not created their own national history. From the
comments of the historians one could conclude that their role since the 9th
century was secondary and that they constituted a passive element on the
fringe of any movement involving politics and society."23
However, these three historians are not the first to use history to support
present-day concerns. The "Investiture of the Dukes of Carantania" was
mentioned in all history textbooks. During the Communist rule, this helped
promote a type of people power. It allowed Tomazic, Bor, and Šavli to see in
it an example of modern democracy.24 The myth of Napoleon, liberator of the
Slovenes and founder of Yugoslavia, was never questioned by the professional
historians, any more than "Illyria revived", the famous poem by Vodnik
(1811), in which the poet considers the Illyrians, that ls to say, the
Slovenes, as indigenous residents and their civilization to have preceded
that of the Romans. Our amateur historians do not say anything different.
Could there be a history for historians, and another one for the people?
By approaching history through national or even nationalistic sensitivity,
our three authors repeat many current cliches and thereby make the same
errors that they attribute to others. Thus the concept of historicity has
hounded the Slovenes since the 19th century. Historians usually explain the
incorporation of Slovenes into Austria and later Yugoslavia by the absence of
an aristocracy, who, in the past, were the disseminators of political ideas.
Tomazic and Šavli are at pains to demonstrate that an aristocracy did exist,
essentially relating it to the Venetic origins.25 Another cliche is the idea
of blood relationships, on which rests pan-Slavism in all its forms. It is
clear that the concept of Yugoslavia, for lack of historical, cultural or
political unity, relied principally on presumed ethno-biological unity. From
this is derived the repeatedly used expression "brother" or "blood brother"
that was so frequently employed before the creation of the first Yugoslavia.
How can one not see in the Venetic theory, which separates the Slovenes from
the other Slavs in the Balkans, an attempt to deny these ethnic bonds, even
if this was not the Intention of the authors?
It is probably because they touch on all these cliches as well as the
national myths that the theses of Tomazic, Bor, and Šavli have encountered
such a huge response with the public. The newspapers were wide open to
debates and polemics that created a large amount of interest. Other amateur
historians directed their search in this direction and quite a few teachers
adopted the new theses.
For the institutional writing of history it presented a real challenge. One
could no longer ignore this "parallel history" that started to invade the
major newspapers; whereas the Slovenian historians were rather a secluded,
desk-bound community. They quickly published The History of Langobards, by
Paulus Diaconus, so the public could judge for itself.26 A compilation of
articles had to refute the arguments of the amateurs and stem the polemics.27
Besides serious and dignified articles, such as one from B. Grafenauer, there
were articles that resembled lampoons more than anything else. At all events,
this questioning of the established truths created a sense of unease. The
historians felt obliged to respond to legitimate questioning by the public.
Thus, A. Pleterski published an Ethnogenesis of the Slovenes in the big daily
newspaper Delo using the traditional form of a serial story.28
The writings of Tomazic, Bor, and Šavli nevertheless have to be placed within
the somewhat chaotic renewal that Slovenian historiography is experiencing.
Meanwhile, the majority of works that have appeared in the last few years
deal with more recent subject matter (the Hapsburgs, the Isonzo [Soca] front,
the Second World War), and permit the Slovenes to become acquainted with a
past whIch was often buried or distorted by propaganda. These works attack
the myth of the origins. One can blame them for tackling very superficially a
subject which is as difficult as it is sensitive.
As far as the Venetic theory in Slovenia is concerned, one has to point out
that the published works, as well as the ensuing polemics, have served to
awaken in the public at large an interest in history which cannot hurt this
discipline. In our time, history is becoming more and more media oriented,
and the historians, even the best known ones, participate in broadcasts of
wide appeal. In Slovenia, which bas only one history school and a limited one
at that, other views - even if questionable - can only benefit research. On
the other hand, one cannot accuse the authors of the Venetic theory, who are
after all only amateurs, of manipulating the public; whereas the official
historiography, with all the knowledge of its specialists, bas had no qualms
about manipulating it for fifty years.
As to the underlying problems raised by the Venetic theory, these go far
beyond the Slovenian context and should be looked at from a regional, as well
as a European point of view. The historical material stirred up by these
amateurs appears to be so immense that it is difficult to believe in fast and
simple answers. For example, to support arguments based on etymology appears,
at the very least, premature. The uncertainties are numerous: the word korol
or kralj - does it really come from Carolus as is believed [conventionally],
or from Venetic curul as proposed by Šavli?29 The contradictions one finds in
different national histories on the subject of the Veneti allow the
development of a variety of hypotheses. It is unfortunate that the
specialists work in a closed circle, separated from one another. The Italian
Venetologists might perhaps tarnish their reputations if they acknowledged
the hypotheses of Bor, however improbable they might be. Could they be
frightened of unleashing ideas of highly unpredictable dimensions about a
possible link between their own ancient culture and the "Slavic barbarians"
beyond their eastern frontiers?
Only the specialists will be able to say if, amongst this enormous number of
hypotheses, there are some valid ones. The unscholarly style, a text full of
considerations that are concerned more with the problem of the image that the
Slovenes have of themselves than with the history itself, does not make a
strong case for the authors. But the energy, the labour, a distinct boldness,
and a new, non-traditional viewpoint might relaunch research in a field that
is still. relatively poorly explored in Slovenia as well as elsewhere.
Despite their rough approach and being harnessed too strongly to the present
time, the works of Tomazic, Bor, and Šavli bring a touch of fresh air to
Slovenian historiography, and so, the younger, very promising generations are
becoming familiar with a many-sided, and contested understanding of history.
It would be a great pity to ignore such an important work. Quite to the
contrary, it should delight historians even if some of the assertions provoke
a burst of salutary laughter.
(Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, Paris)
Footnotes
1. Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, Unsere Vorfahren--die Veneter, Wien.
Editiones Veneti, 1988
2. Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, Veneti--naši davni predniki,
Ljubljana, Ed. Veneti, CGP Vecer. 1989.
3. Jozko Šavli, Slovenska drzava Karantanija, Koper, Lipa - Wien, Ed. Veneti
- Ljubljana, Karantanija, 1990.
4. Z Veneti v novi cas: odgovori, odmevi, obravnave: zbornik 1985-1990, Wien.
Ed. Veneti, 1990; Etrušcaniin Veneti: drugi venetski zbornik, ed. Ivan
Tomazic, Wien, Ed. Veneti, 1995; Ivan Tomazic, Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Novo
sporocilo knjige: Veneti naši davni predniki, Wien, Ed. Veneti, 1996.
5. Bogo Grafenauer, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, t. 1, Ljubljana, Kmecka
knjiga, 1954, p. 102-103.
6. Francis Dvornik, Les Slaves: histoire et civilisation de l'antiquité aux
débuts de l'époque moderne, Paris, Seuil, 1970, p. 22.
7. Tomazic, Šavli, Bor, Novo sporocilo, op. cit. p. 5.
8. Ibid., p. 13.
9. Ibid., p. 55.
10. Considered derogatory, the designation "Windisch" was replaced in Lusatia
by "Sorbisch" which was considered more neutral. Cf. Gerald Stone, The
smallest Slavonic nation, The Athlone Press of the University of London,
1972. On the other hand, after 1918, when the borders of Slovenia were drawn,
the Austrians and the Hungarians attempted to introduce a distinction between
the "Windisch" population of [southern Austria, Hungary, and] the north-east
of Slovenia and the Slovenes proper. Cf. Tom Priestly, "Denial of Ethnic
Identity", Slavic Review, vol. 55, 1966, num. 2, p. 364-398.
11. Tomazic, Šavli, Bor, Novo sporocilo.... op. cit. p. 62. the authors cite
a very impressive number of names.
12. Ibid., p. 16. The authors seem to be searching for a connection between
the Veneti of central Europe and those of Armorica. But did they consider
that the Breton language is Celtic? It is true however that the Vannetais
dialect contains a large number of peculiarities.
13. M. S. Beeler, The Venetic Language, Los Angeles, University of California
Press Berkley. 1949. Michel Lejeune, Manuel de la langue vénete, Heidelberg,
1974. And Ateste al'heure de la romanisation: étude anthroponymique,
Florence, Leo S. Olschi, 1978.
14. Šavli, Slovenska drzava Karantanija. op. cit., p. 93.
15. Ibid., p. 161. Historians of languages go their own way, insisting on the
fact that recently found documents prove that the nobility knew Slovenian,
whereas usually it was considered that only the common people spoke
Slovenian.
16. Ibid., p. 194.
17. Ibid., p. 248.
18. "Certain people say that the Slavic language spread in Dalmatia only
after 606, when Slavs arrived. This is not true [ ... ], as has been proven
by the place-names mentioned by the authors of antiquity. Thus, Livy talks of
Bolazora, of Korita, of Grapsa, etc." (Quoted by V. Nikcevic in Z Veneti v
novi cas, p. 43-44).
19. Cf. for example Bogo Grafenauer, Kmecki upori, Ljubljana, 1962.
20. Josip Gruden-Josip Mal, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, published between
1910 and 1939 by Mohorjeva druzba. Re-published by the same publisher. Celje,
1992.
21. For example the work of Jera Vodušek-Staric, Prevzem oblasti, Ljubljana,
Cankarjeva zalozba. 1992.
22. The chief of the political police, M. Brejc, told the newspaper Nedeljski
dnevnik after the Independence of the questions that the Venetic theory
raised: "the authors (Šavli, Bor, Tomazic) consider the region of the Veneti
from the Po plains to the marshes of Ljubljana to be more important for
Slovenes than their ties to the Yugoslav people. Are we Slavs or Veneti? Do
we belong to Yugoslavia? Are we part of the Balkans?" (Quoted in
EtrušcaniinVeneti..., op. cit., p. 214).
23. Jozko Šavli. "To je Slovenija: njena zgodovina in kultura". Delo, num, 1,
April 9, 1993.
24. It is certain, there is a connection between this ceremony and the U.S.
Constitution through Jean Bodin; cf. J. Felicijan, The Genesis of the
Contractual Theory and the Installation of the Dukes of Carinthia, Cleveland,
1967.
25. We have to mention that the historians of languages do not them to the
degree that they insist more and more that the language and culture were not
passed on only by the peasant classes contradict Slovenian but also by the
aristocracy and the middle classes.
26. Pavel Diakon, Zgodovina Langobardov, Maribor, Obzorja, 1988.
27. "Venetovanje", Arheo: Glasilo arheološkega društva Slovenije, 10.
28. Andrej Pleterski, "Etnogeneza Slovencev", Delo, March 6, 1996.
29. Šavli, Slovenska drzava Karantanija, op. cit., p. 32.
Ivan Tomazic Replies
continues part 3
Filip
This is an important review of a book you should have to decide for
yourself. Sometimes the reviewers comments are quite valid, sometimes not
necessarily true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not you could read
the book and make up your own mind. I find the topic very interesting.
Jim Dangel
------------------
http://dangel.net/SloveniaSection/VenetiReviewBernard.html
THE THEORY OF THE VENETI IN SLOVENIA
A Problem of History, Historiography or Ideology?
By Antonia Bernard
Translation from French coordinated by Anton Škerbinc
---------------------
Part 3 [last excerpt]
Ivan Tomazic Replies
Professor Bernard's essay LA THÉORIE DES VÉNéTES EN SLOVÉNIE which appeared
in the Revue des Études Slaves, Paris LXX/1, 1998, is a welcome addition to
the growing body of material on the subject. Her observations concern not
only Slovenes, but the entire region of central Europe.
She is apologetic for not having studied the Venetic theory more thoroughly,
but it is clear she has considerable knowledge in the field, and her paper is
well researched.
There are, however, a few details in need of correction. For example, in
regard to Lusatian culture, Prof. Bernard states: "It bas been impossible
till now, despite numerous theories, to determine to which people it should
be attributed." What matters, in our view, is that the Lusatian culture gave
birth to new nations on the old pre-Indo-European foundation. The
Proto-Slavic Veneti developed from the inner resources of this culture.
About the Veneti she says: " ... one can locate the Veneti in several
European and Asian places without being able to establish a connection
between them." Obviously, the link among the Veneti in various places is
their dissemination of the Urnfield culture. There is no doubt about that.
We refute her statement: "It would be dishonest to say that the three authors
claim that the Slovenes descend directly from the Veneti." That is exactly
what we claim. All our studies attempt to clarify this one point, namely,
that Slovenes are direct descendants of the Veneti.
Another statement which needs some clarification is: " ... they claim to have
resolved, as if by magic, the problems that have plagued the specialists for
more than a century ... ". From the very beginning our presentations were
based on verifiable historical data, and there is nothing magical about that.
We presented countless pieces of evidence which no historian, linguist, or
archaeologist has been able to contradict so far. Nor are we making the same
mistakes as our critics; that is, we are not presenting theories that we
cannot substantiate.
Professor Bernard maintains our approach is not scholarly, but what could be
more scholarly than presenting evidence and exploring it, as we have, in the
greatest possible detail?
Those who seriously wish to examine this problem point by point should read
VENETI: FIRST BUILDERS OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - Tracing the History and
Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes by J. Šavli, M. Bor, and I. Tomazic.
This is the most thorough work in the English language on the Venetic theory
and its relation to the modern Slovenes. It presents an extraordinary number
of details on every aspect of the subject covered by Professor Bernard.
vs
What languages was Saint Paul speaking to the people of Neapolis ?
Amfipolis ? Thessaloniki ? Edessa ?
Why ?
Filip <mace...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92jcpa$ar6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Voyager
http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/
http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/PageData/list_of_inscriptions.htm
http://www.ancientgreece.com/
http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/06/en/politics/top/top000.html
http://www.macedonia.com/greek/
http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/history/index.html
MACEDONIA MEANS GREECE
Well again !!!!!!!!!!!
I think I have to make a history lesson which is part of
every good ELEMENTARY school around the world !!!!!
When we are talking about Macedonians we are talking
about Greek people and the history of them starts the 6th
again the 6th century BEFORE Christ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Macedonians were Dorians as the Spartans were.
Macedon it's a Greek name and it means tall-man.
They were speaking Greek, having Greek education Greek
religion, Greek costumes, Greek names, and they were the
part of the Greeks who achieve to unified all the Greeks together.
Also a lot's of the greatest minds of the antiquity expect the
political and military leaders were Macedonians.like the
Aristotel and many-many others.
Alexander and Aristotel were THE Greeks as All the Macedonians
of course. If you want more just read the Aristotel.
At the Byzantine times the greatest and longest dynasty of
emperors were the Macedonian dynasty, they also were Greeks
them language was the Greek etc.
The people you call "Macedonians" are SLAVS and the Slavs
came to the Balkan's region at the 7th century AFTER Christ !!!!
Some of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty defend the
the Greek empire of the middle ages (Byzantine) in many wars
against the Slavs who were trying to invade into it.
Now we learn that Slavs can't be Macedonians for all these reasons
above.
One more time in summary.
1) Macedonians history starts at the 6th century BEFORE Christ.
2) So called Macedonians(Slavs)history starts at 7th century
AFTER Christ. 1100 years of distance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3) Macedonians language was always the GREEK !!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) So called Macedonians language is Slavonic very similar to
Bulgarian language.
Now about the latest history.
The Republic of Macedonia was a Tito's creation and it had to
do with his plans to come down to the Aegean sea.
Tito name this part of the formal Yugoslavia as Macedonia after
the second world war for this reason.
The name of this country before that was Bardarska Banovina.
Of course Titto change everything since then and he started teaching
the kids of this country that they come from Alexander the Great
and they are the great Macedonians for the reason above.
After the fall of the communism in Europe the Americans having
many interests and plants for the region pushed things for the
independence of all the formal Yugoslavia federal countries.
They used Macedonia as a tool to blackmail Greece and to
achieve to push Greece to give them the things they wanted
the way they wanted.
Like the issue of the new NATO military bases in Greece the
oils of the Aegean sea, and of course the silence and cooperation
of Greece during the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, which was the
major targets of the USA in it's effort to put it's foots into the Balkans.
There was even CIA agents around this area those years who trying
to find very poor people and they offered them 10000$ to each
person to sign that they are not Greeks but........."Macedonians".:-)))))
The....."Agency" !!!!!
The operation of the CIA to find in northern Greece co-called Macedonians
(Slavs) started at Jen 1994 and the head was the vice-consul of the
American consulate of Thesaloniki David Shuler.
David Shuler except of a vice-consul he was also a CIA official with
specialty in the destabilization of countries and regimes.
Of course this operation was under the knowledge and the protection
of the consul Mrs Myriam Hughes and the ambassador of the American
Embassy of Athens Thomas Nils.
At January 1994 David Shuler met at the only cafe of a small village
outside Florina (Meliti) some Slavs and give them 100000$ and orders
to work on this project finding "Macedonians" (Slavs) in Greece.
Those persons were P.Voscou, Z.Bulef, I. Pasov, D.Dumutriou.
Those 100000$ was the reward of these 4 persons for their work on
this operation.
After this Shuler and his assistants traveled all around Northern Greece
and they found some people (old the most of them and, very poor, and
with less of without education at all), and he persuade them that some
of their grandfathers were "Macedonian" :-))))) giving them 10000$
He give them to sing a paper in Greek and in English which the most of
them were unable to read.
He took all these papers and he send it to the State Department.
The Greek authorities used to follow all the actions of Shuler's team, from
the beginning until the end, but they didn't arrested him for obvious
reasons.
Shuler also after this job he worked in Thrace and he did terrible things
there.
Some time and when Shulers activities became to extraordinary, and
very dangerous, the Greek government call the consul Hughes and ask her
to stop these activities of Shuler.
M.Hughes answer that Shuler is a young man and he has no experience
and he did some bad and wrong things etc.
You know the usual bullshit.
Now about the future
If you are watching the news you should know that after the end of the
war in Kosovo Greece buy everything inside F.Y.R.O.M. even the
central bank of this country, of course under the oversight of the
Americans.
I'm sure that there will be absolutely no problem between the
Greece and the F.Y.R.O.M and i think that the people of this
country are smart enough to understand that Greece is the best
ally for them as Greece never thread them.
On the contrary Albanians and Bulgars used to thread them a lot.
There's no hard feelings about the people of FYROM in Greece
and i think that they are starting to understand that all these are some
of the idiotic things Titto and some stupid nationalists put them in
the head.
There's still some people like this and they used to say this stupid
things which are ridiculous, and that's a problem but i think it will
not be a serious one, i don't think that they are SO stupid !!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure that the people and the politicians of FYROM knows that,
so the future will be excellent for both sides.
Balkans need the peace and i'm sure that's what the Fyromian
people need and want.
Voyager.
I feel pity sometimes, for the people who
read one or more newspapers, and they think
that they know what really happens in the world.
Thomas Jefferson
Former U.S. President.
Friendly
Voyager.
June R Harton
> Are we Bulgarians
Yes.
> They call us "Slavs", however, that word was unknown
> anywhere in the world before 6th century...
> Somebody give us that name.
> Are you tired of the fact that always somebody is giving us a names?
Rubbish, learn about your own history:
West Bulgarians, folks, NOT Macedonians at all.
Despite some propaganda lies in the following link (minimizing the Greeks),
and the mixed up talk of ''ancient Macedonia'' really meaning, in most
instances in the link, the _Roman Diocese of Macedonia_ it shows
the REAL name of FYROM....BULGARIA and the real name of the
Fyromians...Bulgarians:
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/knigi_en/pk/pkoled.html
:)
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
June R Harton
> THE THEORY OF THE VENETI IN SLOVENIA
> A Problem of History, Historiography or Ideology?
> By Antonia Bernard
> Part 3 [last excerpt]
> Ivan Tomazic Replies
> Professor Bernard's essay LA THÉORIE DES VÉNéTES EN SLOVÉNIE
>The Proto-Slavic Veneti developed from the inner resources of this culture.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You STUPID idiots!!!!!!!!!
FYROMians are West Bulgarians, folks, NOT Macedonians at all.
GS
vs wrote:
>
> That's a question:
>
> What languages was Saint Paul speaking to the people of Neapolis ?
> Amfipolis ? Thessaloniki ? Edessa ?
Their own languages plus Hebrew (in the temples)
>
> Why ?
Read the Gospel of Saint Mark, verse 16, 9-20
>
>
June R Harton
> > What languages was Saint Paul speaking to the people of Neapolis ?
> > Amfipolis ? Thessaloniki ? Edessa ?
> Their own languages plus Hebrew (in the temples)
> > Why ?
> Read the Gospel of Saint Mark, verse 16, 9-20
Heretic, YOU read the gospels and go and cut your hair off and pray for
forgiveness for all your evil lies here!
Michael Creevey
GS wrote:
> vs wrote:
> >
> > That's a question:
> >
> > What languages was Saint Paul speaking to the people of Neapolis ?
> > Amfipolis ? Thessaloniki ? Edessa ?
>
> Their own languages plus Hebrew (in the temples)
Their own language=Greek.
What language did Paul write the letters to the Philippians and
Thessalonians in?
(BTW Phillipi and Thessalonica both in Macedonia- both described by Paul
as being in Macedonia)
Give you a clue. Known as koine
>
> >
> > Why ?
>
> Read the Gospel of Saint Mark, verse 16, 9-20
> >
> >
Why, what's that spurious passage got to do with anything at all?
If you want to refer to the Bible, compare Daniel 8:5-8 and 20-22 where
Alexander is clearly identified as the 'King of Greece' (Yawan=Iaones)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
++
Greek is a wonderful language. Lovely for expressing theological
thought.
Btw, I wasn't aware that we had any extant manuscripts of Saint Paul's
Michael Creevey
++ wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Greek is a wonderful language. Lovely for expressing theological
> thought.
I think so, but unfortunately I don't know that much. My grandmother wanted me
to learn, but alas....
> Btw, I wasn't aware that we had any extant manuscripts of Saint Paul's
No, your correct, but we do have ancient copies, 2nd cent. The fact is, there
is no record of Paul writing (or at least dictating) in any language other
than koine. It was the lingua franca of the time. In fact Paul does not claim
to have written virtually any of the letters, all were written by others from
hisn dictation. Since all extant copies of the letters to the Thessalonians
and Philippians before they were translated into Latin were in Koine Greek,
and none in any other language (or the ancient Greek dialect of the
Macedonians) it is 99% probable that the originals were in that language. We
don't have any of the plays of Shakespeare written in his own hand. From that
one 'critic' claimed that the origianl language was Italian, and that
Shakespeare was an Italian refugee! Some crazy Shakespeare theories, but
this'd have to be the weirdest.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov
> The fact is, there is no record of Paul writing (or at least dictating) in any
> language other
> than koine. It was the lingua franca of the time.
Next step:
Proving that any speaker of that lingua franca is ethnically a Greek...
June R Harton
"++" <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote
> Btw, I wasn't aware that we had any extant manuscripts of Saint Paul's
What we have schismatic heretic is THE BIBLE and St Paul's epistles that
clearly refer to Macedonians as being Greeks.
Any statement to the contrary is heretical and non-Orthodox.
And:
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
"You take the lies out of them, and they'll shrink to the size of your
hat, you take the malice out of them, and they will disappear."
Mark Twain (even Mark Twain knew about the Fyromian revisionists)
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
FYROM President Kiro Gligorov: "We are Slavs who came to this area in the
sixth century . . . we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."
(President of FYROM Ciro Gligorov, from the Foreign Information Service
Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35. )
P Gevgeliev wrote in "Skopje revives macedonian spectre", Free
Bulgaria,pp229-230,
It is true that we have given up the teaching of "Macedonian history", a
high falutin term for the ravings of a handful of maniacs in Skopje who are
so far gone in their nationalistic dementia and mental aberration as to
claim that the present "Macedonian" people are descendants of
Alexander the Great.
These "historians" seem to overlook the fact that the Slav tribes came to
this territory fully a thousand years after the death of Alexander the
Macedon."
And lets read what the ancients actually said :
ALEXANDER TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF AND THE MACEDONIANS
BEING GREEK AND FIGHTING FOR GREECE:
Arrian
The Campaigns of Alexander.
Alexander talking to the troops before the battle.
Book 2-7
Penguin Classics.
Page 112.
Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.
" ...............There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service --
but how different is theirs cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
pay--- and not much of it at that; we on the contrary shall fight for
Greece, and our hearts will be in it.
As for our foreign troops ---Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes --- they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they
will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of
Asia."
ANCIENT GREEKS REFERRING TO THE MACEDONIANS
AS GREEK:
Polybios 9.37.7-39.7
Speech of Lykiskos, the representative of Akarnania
to the Lakedaimonians (Spartans):
"In the past you rivalled the Achaians and the Macedonians, peoples of your
own race, and Philip, their commander, for the hegemony and glory, but now
that the freedom of the Hellenes is at stake at a war against an alien
people Romans, ...And does it worth to ally with the barbarians, to take the
field with them against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the
Boiotians, the Thessalians, in fact with almost all the Hellenes with the
exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation...
...So Lakedaimonians it is good to remember your ancestors,... be afraid of
the Romans... and DO ALLY yourselves with the Achaians and Macedonians. But
if some the most powerful citizens are opposed to this policy at least stay
neutral and do not side with the unjust."
MACEDONIANS SAYING THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE GREEK:
Titus Livius, From the Foundation of the City 31
Speech of the Macedonian ambassador to the Aitolians:
"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of
the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes
that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians,
all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are
enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not
from reasons that change from day to day."
June R Harton
> Michael Creevey wrote:
> > The fact is, there is no record of Paul writing (or at least dictating)
in any
> > language other than koine. It was the lingua franca of the time.
> Next step:
> Proving that any speaker of that lingua franca is ethnically a Greek...
Kr ass, you can not even manage a sane thought! Typical to find
you schooled by Gail!
Here Kr ass:
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
> > The fact is, there is no record of Paul writing (or at least dictating) in any
> > language other
> > than koine. It was the lingua franca of the time.
>
> Next step:
> Proving that any speaker of that lingua franca is ethnically a Greek...
How do you suggest we go about doing that? Best way IMO would be to dig up a few dead
ancient Macedones, and compare DNA with some ancient Athenians. Would settle a lot of
arguments.
BTW unlike the Macedonians, who only spoke Greek, the people of Lystra were bilingual,
because they spoke both Greek and 'Lycaonian' (Acts13:11).
We see the strange situation in which an invading people lost their own tongue (really
a dialect of Greek) while a subject people the Lycaonians retaining theirs,
undoubtedly though their native tongue was on the wane and it gradually disappeared.
Perhaps some Anatolian languages survived in dissembled form until the Turkish
occupation of Anatolia.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov
> Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
>
> > Michael Creevey wrote:
> >
> > > The fact is, there is no record of Paul writing (or at least dictating) in any
> > > language other
> > > than koine. It was the lingua franca of the time.
> >
> > Next step:
> > Proving that any speaker of that lingua franca is ethnically a Greek...
>
> How do you suggest we go about doing that? Best way IMO would be to dig up a few dead
> ancient Macedones, and compare DNA with some ancient Athenians.
It would take digging up a few dead Athenians too...
> Could settle a lot of arguments.
> BTW unlike the Macedonians, who only spoke Greek, the people of Lystra were bilingual,
> because they spoke both Greek and 'Lycaonian' (Acts13:11).
> We see the strange situation in which an invading people lost their own tongue
Not quite strange for invaders to adopt the lingua franca.
The invading Macedonians, Romans, Bulgarians, Ottomans, etc. --
all imposed their names for shorter or longer periods of time,
yet adopted and/or blended their language with those of other(s).
In the Bulgarian language for example it is usually next to impossible
to tell apart its Thracian, Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian, Latin,
Slav, Turk, etc. borrowings and influences.
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
[snip]
> > Could settle a lot of arguments.
> > BTW unlike the Macedonians, who only spoke Greek, the people of Lystra were bilingual,
> > because they spoke both Greek and 'Lycaonian' (Acts13:11).
> > We see the strange situation in which an invading people lost their own tongue
>
> Not quite strange for invaders to adopt the lingua franca.
Strange, but not unheard of. Not strange where a tribe of relatively undeveloped culture
invades a more developed one (e.g. Manchus in China, Mongols in India etc.). There is a
distinction in this case. Here we have the Macedones invading Greece and losing their own
dialect in their own country. Not in Athens, but in Macedonia. Also the Seleucids, Ptolemies
and Bactrians in India exclusively used the koine when writing Greek, not the Macedonian
dialect. Why did the Macedonian rulers in non-Greek lands adopt the koine? Only possible
reason- it was the lingua franca of Macedonia *before* the conquests of Alexander.
> The invading Macedonians, Romans, Bulgarians, Ottomans, etc. --
> all imposed their names for shorter or longer periods of time,
> yet adopted and/or blended their language with those of other(s).
Not true- except in certain cases. If I understand correctly, you are talking about the
Balkans solely, otherwise it doesn't really make sense. BTW the Romans were not in the habit
of adopting a foreign tongue. Only Roman philosophers and the occasional poet used Greek.
The Romanian, French, Spanish and Portuguese (and also the Romansch in Switzerland) bear
testament to this. The Romans retained Latin wherever they conquered, however in territories
which they were a demographic minority, of course the 'popular' language would have remained
the native or pre-existing one. BTW the Macedonians and other Greeks in Egypt, although
numerically disadvantaged, retained their use of the koine even though coptic was by and
large the language of the populace. In Syria however koine supplanted Aramaic as the most
spoken language. The Ottomans again retained their own language. The Bulgars were subsumed
into an overwhelmingly slavic populace and their independent existence ceased.
> In the Bulgarian language for example it is usually next to impossible
> to tell apart its Thracian, Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian, Latin,
> Slav, Turk, etc. borrowings and influences.
>
> > (really
> > a dialect of Greek) while a subject people the Lycaonians retaining theirs,
> > undoubtedly though their native tongue was on the wane and it gradually disappeared.
> > Perhaps some Anatolian languages survived in dissembled form until the Turkish
> > occupation of Anatolia.
Something similar apparently happened to the Bulgar language.
BTW you asked something about the Thracians regarding the Macedonians. The Thracians were
related it appears to both the Phrygians and Dacians (modern-day Romanians). They of course
weren't slavs and during Alexander's time were primitive tribesmen (and fierce warriors).
Without wishing to sound at all nationalistic (I don't believe I am, anyway) they have shown
a lack of capacity both in their previous forms and in the present for organizing a conquest
on the scale of Alexander's. BTW if differentiation between Macedonia and Greece by certain
authors is to you significant, note that there is no source linking the ethnicity of the
Thracians and the Macedonians. The cultures of Thrace and Macedonia were totally unrelated,
as were languages, etc (mind you there was the occasional borrowing of words, place names
etc, but no immanent relationship can be demonstrated by any means).
So if the Makedones were not Thracians, they had to be Greeks, esp. as the facts do indicate
at least a *level* of kinship between Makedones and other Greeks. E.g. the participation
from early times (ie from the beginning of records of these things ie well before Philip) in
the Olympics and Amphictyonies, which were strictly forbidden to barbarians (a word denoting
to the ancient Greeks a speaker, or jabberer, of weird sounding languages).
If you contend they were not Greeks, you contend that they were autochthonous and you need
to present your autochthony theory ( like Hesiod perhaps?)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov
> Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Could settle a lot of arguments.
> > > BTW unlike the Macedonians, who only spoke Greek, the people of Lystra were bilingual,
> > > because they spoke both Greek and 'Lycaonian' (Acts13:11).
> > > We see the strange situation in which an invading people lost their own tongue
> >
> > Not quite strange for invaders to adopt the lingua franca.
>
> Strange, but not unheard of. Not strange where a tribe of relatively undeveloped culture
> invades a more developed one (e.g. Manchus in China, Mongols in India etc.). There is a
> distinction in this case. Here we have the Macedones invading Greece and losing their own
> dialect in their own country. Not in Athens, but in Macedonia. Also the Seleucids, Ptolemies
> and Bactrians in India exclusively used the koine when writing Greek, not the Macedonian
> dialect. Why did the Macedonian rulers in non-Greek lands adopt the koine?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was already lingua franca in non-Greek lands.
If you now become head of an unknown tribe,
chances are they will learn from you English,
perhaps only.
> Only possible reason- it was the lingua franca of Macedonia *before* the conquests of
> Alexander.
Or the only candidate for lingua franca.
then
> and during Alexander's time were primitive tribesmen (and fierce warriors).
> Without wishing to sound at all nationalistic
:) How you could: a 3/5 non-Macedonian + 0.3146 Greek +... ?
> (I don't believe I am, anyway) they have shown
> a lack of capacity both in their previous forms and in the present for organizing a conquest
> on the scale of Alexander's.
> BTW if differentiation between Macedonia and Greece by certain
> authors is to you significant, note that there is no source linking the ethnicity of the
> Thracians and the Macedonians. The cultures of Thrace and Macedonia were totally unrelated,
> as were languages, etc (mind you there was the occasional borrowing of words, place names
> etc, but no immanent relationship can be demonstrated by any means).
> So if the Makedones were not Thracians, they had to be Greeks, esp. as the facts do indicate
> at least a *level* of kinship between Makedones and other Greeks. E.g. the participation
> from early times (ie from the beginning of records of these things ie well before Philip) in
> the Olympics and Amphictyonies, which were strictly forbidden to barbarians
Such as the non-forbidden Milo and Alexander?
> (a word denoting
> to the ancient Greeks a speaker, or jabberer, of weird sounding languages).
> If you contend they were not Greeks, you contend that they were autochthonous and you need
> to present your autochthony theory ( like Hesiod perhaps?)
Both were part of the ancient "Hellenic" world,
only a little better isolated/protected from the Sea people
and their lingua franca.
June R Harton
Kr ass wrote
> The invading Macedonians, Romans, Bulgarians, Ottomans, etc. --
> all imposed their names for shorter or longer periods of time,
> yet adopted and/or blended their language with those of other(s).
> In the Bulgarian language for example it is usually next to impossible
> to tell apart its Thracian, Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian, Latin,
> Slav, Turk, etc. borrowings and influences.
You sick little wet pants farcical idiot!
Macedonians and Macedonian is Greek. Sniverling criminal revisionists,
as you, will never get the name. and the likes of you make it impossible
to even allow a geographic or partial term.
June R Harton
Kr ass wrote
> Because it was already lingua franca in non-Greek lands.
Stupid and nonsense as usual from Kr ass!
Kr ass you moronic ass, you know nothing of history to state the above.
Do you like making your ignorance obvious to all? It is one of Gail's
shameless traits.
You are all a bunch of brainless worms.
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
>
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
> > Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Could settle a lot of arguments.
> > > > BTW unlike the Macedonians, who only spoke Greek, the people of Lystra were bilingual,
> > > > because they spoke both Greek and 'Lycaonian' (Acts13:11).
> > > > We see the strange situation in which an invading people lost their own tongue
> > >
> > > Not quite strange for invaders to adopt the lingua franca.
> >
> > Strange, but not unheard of. Not strange where a tribe of relatively undeveloped culture
> > invades a more developed one (e.g. Manchus in China, Mongols in India etc.). There is a
> > distinction in this case. Here we have the Macedones invading Greece and losing their own
> > dialect in their own country. Not in Athens, but in Macedonia. Also the Seleucids, Ptolemies
> > and Bactrians in India exclusively used the koine when writing Greek, not the Macedonian
> > dialect. Why did the Macedonian rulers in non-Greek lands adopt the koine?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Because it was already lingua franca in non-Greek lands.
What?? It was the lingua franca in certain areas of the Mediterranean
coast, such as E Spain, S France, S Italy, Sicily and the S Ukraine,
areas which are not today considered Greece proper, but these people
were ethnic Greeks.
Not lingua franca anywhere else.
> If you now become head of an unknown tribe,
> chances are they will learn from you English,
> perhaps only.
None of these 'tribes' were unknown. Koine became the lingua franca in
Mesopotamia and Syria, 2 areas of much older urban civilization than
Greece. Ditto Palestine. Greek unheard of in India I would expect until
Alexander's arrival. Spoken probably in Cilicia and Naucratis in Egypt
by Greeks and those who traded with them, but no one else.
>
> > Only possible reason- it was the lingua franca of Macedonia *before* the conquests of
> > Alexander.
>
> Or the only candidate for lingua franca.
Why not 'Macedonian'? Or Aramaic, the hitherto universal lingua franca
of the middle east?
[snip rest]
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Krasimir Yalamov
> Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> > If you now become head of an unknown tribe,
> > chances are they will learn from you English,
> > perhaps only.
> None of these 'tribes' were unknown. Koine became the lingua franca in
> Mesopotamia and Syria, 2 areas of much older urban civilization than
> Greece. Ditto Palestine. Greek unheard of in India I would expect until
> Alexander's arrival. Spoken probably in Cilicia and Naucratis in Egypt
> by Greeks and those who traded with them, but no one else.
Make the unknown tribe known people and find what you missed,
which seems to be the reason behind your question below.
> > > Only possible reason- it was the lingua franca of Macedonia *before* the conquests of
> > > Alexander.
> >
> > Or the only candidate for lingua franca.
> Why not 'Macedonian'?
Here it is, rephrased:
> > If you now become head of known people
(no matter what is your background)
and decide which language they should use
> > chances are they will learn from you English,
> > perhaps only.
The Sea Peoples borrowed and refined language patterns
from everywhere (e.g. Makedon) into a lingua franca.
Each of the languages of the Land Peoples (e.g. Makedon)
had a lesser chance to become that lingua franca.
Once the Macedonians conquests started,
their language would have had greater chance to take such role --
if only there was not the fact that the military and political success
in the conquests required adoption of the existing lingua franca.
June R Harton
academic world that in 200 B.C. that they, the Macedonians themselves,
eternal nature', which says they are saying that they have always been Greek
and are Greeks. (And, by the way, it was stated as an unquestionable
fact and received by those present as an unquestionable fact.)
The second quote shows the Macedonian People again, these
so-called (by the Fyrom'ers) 'Hellas-conquering Macedonians',
ten leading citizens from each city - from the city of
Pelagonia (Heraklea near modern day Bitola) to the Peneus,
from Edessa to Amphipolis - are being communicated to by the Romans-
and the Romans in order to communicate to this 'crowd of Macedonians'
in the Macedonians' own homeland translate their Latin into Greek
not some non-existant ficticious 'Macedonian'.
Also, the second quote identifies Paeonia from as far south as
at least Stobi and the Dardanians beyound Paeonia - this of course
covering most of the area of what is the FYROM.
And related to other arguments on population #'s in the past, the Chalcidice
is completely identified as part of Macedonia.
Also, this shows that an independent nation, namely the Romans,
solidly recognised that the Macedonians were Greeks way back
then, so it is not a 'fabrication of 19th century Greece'.
And the Penguin Classic translation was not done by a person
that anyone can claim is partial to any side in this issue. It is
for twenty - five years at Charterhouse.
MACEDONIA - An Ancient GREEK Land
In the year 200 B.C. the Macedonian King Philip V sent
Macedonian ambassadors to the council of the Aetolian
League, the 'Panaetolian Congress', to try to prevent the
Romans from inducing the Aetolians to change their allegiance
from Philip V to the Romans in their 2nd Macedonian War.
At the council was also the Roman representative
sent by the consul, and also a deputation from the
Athenians who were the Romans' allies at this time.
A hearing was first given to the Macedonians.
The Macedonian delegates said:
'..........the same reasons which led them (the Aetolians)
to make peace with Philip should lead them to keep that
peace, once it had been established'.
'Or do you prefer' said one of the the delegates, '.......
................ . It is sheer madness to expect anything will
remain in the same state if aliens, more widely separated
from you by language, customs and laws than by distance
over sea and land, obtain control over these parts.
Philip's rule ............. . Allow the foreign legions to settle
down in these parts and take the yoke on your shoulders;
then it will be too late and all in vain to call on Philip as
your ally, when you have the Roman for your lord. The
Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, are divided
or united by unimportant causes that arise from time
to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks are and
will be for ever at war; for they are enemies not for
reasons which change from day to day, but by nature -
and nature is eternal. But now my speech will end .........'
Livy (Titus Livius), XXXI.28 - XXXI.29
from LIVY. ROME AND THE MEDITERRANEAN
Translated by HENRY BETTENSON
PENGUIN CLASSICS
For fair use only
_Rome dictates terms after 3rd Macedonian War_
17 [167 B.C.]. The Senate appointed ten commissioners
for Macedonia and five for Illyricum; on their advice
Paulus and Anicius were to settle affairs in those
countries. The members of the Macedonian
commission were nominated first: they were .......... .
The men who were being sent on the commissions
were of a quality to justify the hope that on their
advice the commanders would make no decisions
inconsistant with the clemency and the dignity of the
Roman people; nevertheless, there were discussions
in the Senate about guiding principles of policy so
that the commissioners should be able to convey from
home to the generals the ground work of a settlement.
18. First of all, it was decided that the Macedonians and
the Illyrians should be free; so that it should be evident
to all peoples that the arms of the Roman people did
not bring slavery to the free but, on the contrary,
freedom to the enslaved; so that nations which enjoyed
freedom should feel that their liberty was assured in
perpetuity under the protection of the Roman People,
and that those people who lived under the rule of kings
should be convinced that for the present their rulers
were more gentle and more just by reason of their
respect for the Roman People, and that if ever their
rulers should be at war with the Roman People, the
result of that war would bring victory to the Romans
and liberty to themselves.
It was also decided to do away with the leasing of the
Macedonian mines,.............................................. .
Finally, fearing that a common legislative body for
the whole nation might give a chance for some
unscrupulous demagogue to pervert the freedom
given by healthy moderation into the licence
which is a plague to any commonwealth, the Senate
decided to divide Macedonia into four districts, each
having its own governing body. It was also decreed
that Macedonia should pay to the Roman people
half the tribute which they had customarily paid to
their kings. ........................................................ .
29. Paulus had given orders that on a certain day
ten leading citizens from each city should present
themselves at Amphipolis, that all official documents
deposited in different places should be collected by
that time, and the king's money should be brought
in. When the day arrived, Paulus, accompanied by
the ten commissioners, took his seat on his official
platform, surrounded by the whole crowd of
Macedonians. The Macedonians were accustomed
to the power of kings; but this new sovereign power
was displayed to them in a fashion to inspire
dread; the consul's seat of judgement, his entrance
after a path had been cleared, the herald, and
the attendant - all these were novelties to their eyes
and ears, and they were things that might have
frightened even allies, not to speak of conquered
enemies. When the herald had imposed silence,
Paulus announced in Latin the decisions of the
Senate, along with his own decisions, made on the
advice of his council.
The praetor Gnaeus Octavius - for he too was
there - translated these announcements into
Greek and conveyed them to the Macedonians.
The provisions were as follows: first of all, the
Macedonians were to be free, keeping their own
cities and territories, enjoying their own laws, and
electing annual magistrates; they were to pay to
Roman people half the tax they had paid to their kings.
In the next place Macedonia was to be divided into
four districts; one district, the first division would
consist of the land between the rivers Strymon and
Nessus; and to this division would be added, from
across the Nessus to the east, the villages, fortified
places, and towns which Perseus had held, except
Aenus, Maronea, and Abdera, while on the nearer
side of the Strymon, towards the west, there would
be added all the country of the Bisaltae, including
Heraclea (Heraclea Sintice as it is called). The
second district was to consist of the part bounded
on the east by the River Strymon, excluding Heraclea
Sintice and the Bisaltae - and on the west by the
Axius, and was to include the Paeonians dwelling
near the Axius on the east bank of the river. The
third district comprised the territory enclosed on
the east by the Axius and on the west by the River
Peneus - on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius;
Edessa and Beroea were also assigned to this
district. The fourth district was on the other side of
Mount Bora, one part of it bordering on Illyricum,
the other on Epirus. The capitals of the districts,
where their councils were to be held, were these:
for the first district, Amphipolis; for the second,
Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia. The consul gave orders that a council
for each district should be called in each of these
places, and that in these places money should
be brought in, and magistrates elected.
Next he announced a decision that no one should
have the right of marriage or of dealing in land or
buildings outside the confines of his own district.
Moreover, the mines of gold and silver were not
to be worked, although the working of iron and
copper mines was allowed, the taxon those working
the mines was fixed at half the amount they had
paid to the king. He forbade the use of imported
salt. When the Dardanians asked for the
restoration of Paeonia, on the ground that it had
been theirs and that it adjoined their boundaries,
Paulus announced that freedom was being given
to all those who had been under the rule of King
Perseus. But after refusing them Paeonia he gave
them the right to import salt; he ordered the third
district to convey salt to Stobi in Paeonia, and he
fixed the price of this commodity. He forbade the
Macedonians to cut timber for ships, or to allow
others to do so. The districts with barbarians on
their borders - all the districts, that is, except the
third - were given leave to have armed guards along
their frontiers.
30. The announcement of these provisions on the
first day of the meeting aroused varied feelings.
The unexpected granting of freedom, and the
lightening of the annual tax, raised men's spirits;
but to those whose commercial activities were
interrupted by the division into districts their
country seemed cut into pieces, like an animal
torn into separate parts, each of which needed the others;
so unaware were the Macedonians themselves of
the size of Macedonia, of the ease with which it
could be divided, of the self-sufficiency of each part.
The first district enjoys many advantages; it has the
Bisaltae, first-class fighting men (they live beyond
the Nessus, in the neighbourhood of the Strymon);
it has crops of many kinds peculiar to the region,
it has mines; and the strategic position of Amphipolis
forms a barrier closing all approaches into
Macedonia from the east. The second division has
the extremely populous cities of Thessalonica and
Cassandrea, and it has besides, in Pallene, a
fertile and fruitful territory; it is also provided with
maritime advantages in the shape of the harbours at
Torone, Mount Athos, Aenea, and Acanthus, all in
convenient positions, some facing Thessaly and the
island of Euboea, others looking towards the
Hellespont. The third region has the notable cities of
Edessa, Beroea, and Pella; it includes the warlike
people of the Vettii, besides a large settlement of
Gauls and Illyrians, who are energetic farmers. The
fourth region is inhabited by the Eordaei, the
Lyncestae, and the Pelagonians; added to these
are Atintania, Tymphaeis, and Elimiotis. All this stretch
of country is cold, difficult of cultivation and harsh;
and it has inhabitants of a character resembling the
land; and they are made fiercer by the wild tribesmen
dwelling next to them, who sometimes give them
practice in warfare, sometimes, in times of peace, an
intermixture of their customs. The division of Macedonia
thus demonstrated, by separating the advantages of the
different parts, the greatness of the country as a whole.
31. After the dictation of the scheme for Macedonia,
Paulus gave notice that he would also lay down laws.
He then summoned the Aetolians to appear before him.
In this examination .................................................. .
Livy (Titus Livius), XLV.17 - XLV.31
from LIVY. ROME AND THE MEDITERRANEAN
Translated by HENRY BETTENSON
PENGUIN CLASSICS
For fair use only
Krasimir Yalamov
Crap, but its is kind of fun to see how she defeats herself
by the quotes she brings
In the next place Macedonia was to be divided into
four districts; one district, the first division would
consist of the land between the rivers Strymon and
Nessus; and to this division would be added, from
across the Nessus to the east, the villages, fortified
places, and towns which Perseus had held, except
Aenus, Maronea, and Abdera, while on the nearer
side of the Strymon, towards the west, there would
be added all the country of the Bisaltae, including
Heraclea (Heraclea Sintice as it is called).
KY: = (more or less) Republic of Macedonia
The second district was to consist of the part bounded
on the east by the River Strymon, excluding Heraclea
Sintice and the Bisaltae - and on the west by the
Axius, and was to include the Paeonians dwelling
near the Axius on the east bank of the river. The
third district comprised the territory enclosed on
the east by the Axius and on the west by the River
Peneus - on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius;
Edessa and Beroea were also assigned to this
district.
KY: = Modern Bulgaria
The fourth district was on the other side of
Mount Bora, one part of it bordering on Illyricum,
KY: ... Albania
the other on Epirus. The capitals of the districts,
where their councils were to be held, were these:
for the first district, Amphipolis; for the second,
Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia. The consul gave orders that a council
for each district should be called in each of these
places, and that in these places money should
be brought in, and magistrates elected.
KY: Greeks could fit here as a sort of Macedonians
June R Harton
>Crap,
The crap is all in your head, kr ass.
:)
>"but its is kind of fun to see how she defeats herself
by the quotes she brings
In the next place Macedonia was to be divided into
four districts; one district, the first division would
consist of the land between the rivers Strymon and
Nessus; and to this division would be added, from
across the Nessus to the east, the villages, fortified
places, and towns which Perseus had held, except
Aenus, Maronea, and Abdera, while on the nearer
side of the Strymon, towards the west, there would
be added all the country of the Bisaltae, including
Heraclea (Heraclea Sintice as it is called).
KY: = (more or less) Republic of Macedonia "
My goodness, you are not only ignorant of history but also geography
just like Gail, Kr ass!
>"The second district was to consist of the part bounded
on the east by the River Strymon, excluding Heraclea
Sintice and the Bisaltae - and on the west by the
Axius, and was to include the Paeonians dwelling
near the Axius on the east bank of the river. The
third district comprised the territory enclosed on
the east by the Axius and on the west by the River
Peneus - on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius;
Edessa and Beroea were also assigned to this
district.
KY: = Modern Bulgaria "
BWAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ditto, Kr ass!
>"The fourth district was on the other side of
Mount Bora, one part of it bordering on Illyricum,
KY: ... Albania "
Ditto Kr ass...._bordering_ on illyricum!
>"the other on Epirus. The capitals of the districts,
where their councils were to be held, were these:
for the first district, Amphipolis; for the second,
Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia. The consul gave orders that a council
for each district should be called in each of these
places, and that in these places money should
be brought in, and magistrates elected.
KY: Greeks could fit here as a sort of Macedonians"
Kr ass, you ignoramous! All the areas refer to the Macedonian
Greeks, you unmitigated fool!
In the next place Macedonia was to be divided into
four districts; one district, the first division would
consist of the land between the rivers Strymon and
Nessus; and to this division would be added, from
across the Nessus to the east, the villages, fortified
places, and towns which Perseus had held, except
Aenus, Maronea, and Abdera, while on the nearer
side of the Strymon, towards the west, there would
be added all the country of the Bisaltae, including
Heraclea (Heraclea Sintice as it is called). The
second district was to consist of the part bounded
on the east by the River Strymon, excluding Heraclea
Sintice and the Bisaltae - and on the west by the
Axius, and was to include the Paeonians dwelling
near the Axius on the east bank of the river. The
third district comprised the territory enclosed on
the east by the Axius and on the west by the River
Peneus - on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius;
Edessa and Beroea were also assigned to this
district. The fourth district was on the other side of
Mount Bora, one part of it bordering on Illyricum,
the other on Epirus. The capitals of the districts,
where their councils were to be held, were these:
for the first district, Amphipolis; for the second,
Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia. The consul gave orders that a council
for each district should be called in each of these
places, and that in these places money should
be brought in, and magistrates elected.
Next he announced a decision that no one should
have the right of marriage or of dealing in land or
buildings outside the confines of his own district.
Moreover, the mines of gold and silver were not
to be worked, although the working of iron and
copper mines was allowed, the taxon those working
the mines was fixed at half the amount they had
paid to the king. He forbade the use of imported
salt. When the Dardanians asked for the
restoration of Paeonia, on the ground that it had
been theirs and that it adjoined their boundaries,
Paulus announced that freedom was being given
to all those who had been under the rule of King
Perseus. But after refusing them Paeonia he gave
them the right to import salt; he ordered the third
district to convey salt to Stobi in Paeonia, and he
fixed the price of this commodity. He forbade the
Macedonians to cut timber for ships, or to allow
others to do so. The districts with barbarians on
their borders - all the districts, that is, except the
third - were given leave to have armed guards along
their frontiers.
Krasimir Yalamov
[del]
> from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
The Spirit of Truth demoted again...
June R Harton
KY: = Modern Bulgaria "
BWAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ditto, Kr ass!
KY: ... Albania "
Greeks, you unmitigated fool!
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
++
Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
>
> Ju Hole wrote:
>
> Crap, but its is kind of fun to see how she defeats herself
> by the quotes she brings
Watch the use of the word "she" in the context of the Junebugger, will
you please? As a woman, I highly resent even the idea that it could
possibly be female.
Thanking you in advance for referringto the junebugger as it or he,
Galina
June R Harton
Gail Schneider wrote
Gail Schneider whose hypocrisy knows no bounds,
who did this:
encouraged terrorism in Greece, informed on innocent people,
aided posts threatening mayhem, posted posts designed to
destroy people's livelihoods, aided persons denigrating
the Orthodox religion, and such posts where she made filthy
reference to her pubic region in public and other filthy remarks,
and continually posts hypocritical heretical lies to history
and truth
"++" <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote
> I have personally given up a long time ago trying to reason with this
> character.
She even lies about that folks.....I gave up on her for that reason
and posted same ......which she now pretends she did!
:)
Anyone want to see the series of relevent posts????
:)
Krasimir Yalamov
> Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> >
> > Crap, but it is kind of fun to see how she defeats herself
> > by the quotes she brings
>
> Watch the use of the word "she" in the context of the Junebugger, will
> you please? As a woman, I highly resent even the idea that it could
> possibly be female.
I appologize.
> Thanking you in advance for referringto the junebugger as it or he,
>
> Galina
it does not worth referring to :)
++
Dear Krasivimir,<----note attempt to cheerfully counterbalance the
Junebugger's attempts at morphing your name to "Krass" (you may be
anything from a 350 pound nerd or conversely a steller looking dude
((what does it matter? This is the internet...)), but I will consider
you handsome for this posting in defence of women worldwide)
Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
>
> ++ wrote:
>
> > Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
> > >
> > > Crap, but it is kind of fun to see how she defeats herself
> > > by the quotes she brings
> >
> > Watch the use of the word "she" in the context of the Junebugger, will
> > you please? As a woman, I highly resent even the idea that it could
> > possibly be female.
>
> I appologize.
Apology graciously accepted. Womankind is relieved of not having to
claim the Junebugger in its ranks.
>
> > Thanking you in advance for referringto the junebugger as it or he,
> >
> > Galina
>
> it does not worth referring to :)
Indeed.
June R Harton
> Dear Krasivimir,<----note attempt to cheerfully counterbalance the
> Junebugger's attempts at morphing your name to "Krass"
Wrong again, whore to history and truth: Kr ass!
:)
vs
GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3A4DA939...@my-deja.com...
>
>
> vs wrote:
> >
> > That's a question:
> >
> > What languages was Saint Paul speaking to the people of Neapolis ?
> > Amfipolis ? Thessaloniki ? Edessa ?
>
> Their own languages plus Hebrew (in the temples)
> >
oh...@my-dej.com
>
> What language did St Paul use to send his letters in Makedonia ?
Good question. The apostles were given the gift of languages in order
to preach the Word. In the following passage, Mark 16, 9-20, definitely
accepted by the Orthodox Church, we see the following. Tongues means
languages in this context, btw.:
> And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My Name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following.
On the authenticity of these verses, see:
http://www.trf.org.au/mk16.htm
For a general discussion of early texts of the New Testament and of the
recent history of biblical criticism, see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm
Saint Paul himself spoke Aramaic, probably, and certainly understood the
hebrew language:
The Epistle: Acts 26: 9-21
Paul said, "I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things
against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is what I did in
Jerusalem; with authority received from
the chief priests, I not only locked up many of the saints in
prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being
condemned to death. By punishing them
often in all the synagogues I tried to force them to blaspheme; and
since I was so furiously enraged at them, I pursued them even to foreign
cities. With this in mind, I was
traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief
priests, when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light
from heaven, brighter than the
sun, shining around me and my companions. When we had all fallen to
the ground, I heard a voice saying to me IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, 'Saul,
Saul, why are you
persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.' I asked,
'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus whom you are
persecuting. But get up and stand on
your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint
you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to
those in which I will appear to you. I
will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles - to whom I
am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to
light and from the power of
Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a
place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' After that, King
Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the
heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in
Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the
Gentiles, that they should repent and
turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance. For this reason
the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me."
But it is clear that he preached in Syria, so that would have been
Syriac he used as well, perhaps one of the use of tongues he received
from the Holy Spirit at his conversion or since others of the Apostles
who accompanied him on journeys, especially Saint Luke, knew Greek, he
might have accessed the language ability of others..
Likewise, he understood Macedonian and had Macedonian traveling
companions
Additionally, as a Roman citizen, he was probably familiar with Latin as
he spoke before Agrippa.. Recall also that many early Latin texts of
the Bible have come down to us. Here is a classic study on Saint Paul
by Ramsey in 1907. The whole study is at the following website and
includes an exhaustive analysis of everywhere that Paul traveled:
http://www.ccel.org/r/ramsay/paul_roman/paul_roman.txt
As a Tarsian , he had Greco-Roman as well as Jewish heritage and also,
since he spent time in Arabia, probably also understood Arabic Here is
the portion of the Ramsey text dealing with evidence of Paul's
background and personality:
On his being accompanied by Macedonians, read Ramsey on the relevant
passages:
Two of Paul's companions in travel, Gaius and Aristarchus, had been
carried into the theater with the crowd; and he himself was on the point
of going there, but the disciples would not allow him, and his friends
among the Asiarchs sent urging him not to risk himself among the mob.
It is noteworthy that Luke, as usual, adds no comments or reflections of
his own as to the danger in which Paul was placed. But the slightest
consideration suffices to show that he must have been at this period in
the most imminent danger, with the mob of a great Ionian coast city
raging against him. In the speech of Demetrius are concentrated most of
the feelings and motives that, from the beginning to the end, made the
mob so hostile to the Christians in the great oriental cities. Paul
himself says, "concerning our affliction which befell in Asia, that we
were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we
despaired even of life"(II Cor. I 8). His immediate withdrawal from
Ephesus, in the midst of his promising work, was forced on him.
It is a question whether the reading of some few MSS., "Gaius and
Aristarchus a Macedonian,"should not be followed. Gaius, in that case,
would be the native of Derbe mentioned in XX 4. Luke, himself a
Macedonian, does not omit the little touch of national pride in
Aristarchus; but he was not so interested in the nationality of Gaius.
The peculiar phraseology, with the ethnic in singular (Makedovna)
following two names, and preceding sunekdhvmou", led naturally to the
change (Makedovna"), which appears in most MSS. The epithet, "travelling
companions,"seems to point forward to XX 4, as we have no reason to
think that either Gaius or Aristarchus had hitherto been companions of
Paul on a journey. Prof. Blass, recognising the probability that Gaius
is the traveling companion of XX 4, accepts Valckenaer's alteration of
the text in that place, making Gaius a Thessalonian, and Timothy a man
of Derbe; and that alteration would be very tempting, were it not for
the insurmountable statement, XVI 1, that Timothy was a Lystran.
As a Roman, Paul had a nomen and\prφnomen, probably taken from the Roman
officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest
in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen:
there is no reason to think he was an Φmilius (as some suggest). Paul
was, in the second place, a "Tarsian, a citizen of a distinguished
city"(XXI 39, IX 11). He was not\merely a person born in Tarsus, owing
to the accident of his family being there: he had a citizen's rights in
Tarsus. We may confidently assume that Paul was careful to keep within
demonstrable law and custom, when he claimed to be a Tarsian citizen in
describing himself to the Tribune. According to the strict
interpretation of the Roman law, the civitas superseded all other
citizenship, but this theoretical exclusiveness was op- posed to the
Imperial spirit; and it is clear that Roman cives in a provincial city
commonly filled the position of high- class citizens, and even had
magistracies pressed upon them by general consent. Now, if Paul's
family had merely emigrated to Tarsus from Judea some years before his
birth, neither he nor his father would have been "Tarsians,"but merely
"residents"(incolφ). It is probable, but not certain, that the family
had been planted in Tarsus with full rights as part of a colony settled
there by one of the Seleucid kings in order to strengthen their hold on
the city. Such a re-foundation took place at Tarsus, for the name
Antiocheia was given it under Antiochus IV (175-164 B.C.). The Seleucid
kings seem to have had a preference for Jewish colonists in their
foundations in Asia Minor. Citizenship in Tarsus might also have been
presented to Paul's father or grandfather for distinguished services to
the State; but that is much less probable.
In the third place, Paul was "a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews ". The
expression is a remarkable one. It is used not to a Jewish audience,
but to a Greek Church (Phil. III 5), and it is similar to a familiar
expression among the Greeks: "a priest sprung from priests"is a term
commonly applied to members of the great sacerdotal families which play
so important a part in the society of Asian cities. He was a Jew at
least as much as he was a Tarsian and a Roman, as regards his early
surroundings; and it is obvious that the Jewish side of his nature and
education proved infinitely the most important, as his character
developed. But it is a too common error to ignore the other sides. Many
interpreters seem to think only of his words, XXII 3, "I am a Jew born
in Tarsus,"and to forget that he said a few moments before, "I am a Jew,
a Tarsian, a citizen of no mean city". To the Hebrews he emphasises his
Jewish character, and his birth in Tarsus is added as an accident: but
to Claudius Lysias, a Greek-Roman, he emphasises his Tarsian citizenship
(after having told of his Roman citizenship). Now, there is no
inconsistency between these descriptions of himself. Most of us have no
difficulty in understanding that a Jew at the present day may be a
thoroughly patriotic English citizen, and yet equally proud of his
ancient and honourable origin. In the extraordinarily mixed society of
the Eastern provinces, it was the usual rule in educated society that
each man had at least two nationalities and two sides to his character.
If we would clearly understand the society in which Paul worked, and the
mission of Rome to make the idea of cosmopolitanism and universal
citizenship a practical reality-an idea that had been first conceived by
the Stoic philosophy in its attempt to fuse Greek and oriental thought
into a unified system-we must constantly bear in mind that double or
even triple character, which was so common.
To the Hebrew of that period it was specially easy to preserve the
Hebraic side of his life along with his Greek citizenship; for the
Jewish colony in a Seleucid city preserved as a body its double
character. It was not merely a part of the city, whose members were
citizens, but it was also recognised by the Seleucid Empire and
afterwards by the Roman Empire as "the Nation of the Jews in that city".
Thus arose a strange and often puzzling complication of rights, which
caused much heart-burning and jealousy among the non-Jewish citizens of
the city, and which was at last terminated by the action of Vespasian in
A.D. 70, when he put an end to the legal existence of a "Jewish
nation,"and resolved the Jews into the general population of the Empire.
From this wide and diversified training we may understand better Paul's
suitability to develop the primitive Judaic Church into the Church of
the Roman World (for beyond that he never went in practice, though in
theory he recognised no limit short of universal humanity), his
extraordinary versatility and adaptability (which evidently impressed
Luke so much, p. 22), and his quickness to turn the resources of
civilisation to his use. The Jew in his own land was rigidly
conservative; but the Jew abroad has always been the most facile and
ingenious of men. There are no stronger influences in education and in
administration than rapidity and ease of traveling and the postal
service; Paul both by precept and example impressed the importance of
both on his Churches; and the subsequent development of the Church was
determined greatly by the constant intercommunication of its parts and
the stimulating influence thereby produced on the whole.
2. PAUL'S FAMILY. If Paul belonged to a family of wealth and position,
how comes it that in great part of his career (but not in the whole, p.
312) he shows all the marks of poverty, maintaining himself by his own
labour, and gratefully acknowledging his indebtedness to the
contributions of his Philippian converts, in Rome, in Corinth, and twice
in Thessalonica (Phil. IV 15, II Cor. XI 9; see p. 360)? It was not
simply that he voluntarily worked with his hands in order to impress on
his converts the dignity and duty of labour, for he conveys the
impression, II Cor. XI 8 f., I Thess. II 9, that he had to choose
between accepting help from his converts, and making his own living. But
it often happens in our own experience that a member of a rich family is
in a position of poverty. It would be enough simply to accept the fact;
but, as Paul in his later career is found in a different position, and
as the same conjecture about his poverty must arise in every one's mind,
we may glance for a moment at the relations in which Paul would stand to
his own family after his conversion.
The relations between Paul and his family are never alluded to by
himself, and only once by Luke, who tells how his sisters son saved his
life in Jerusalem by giving private information of the secret conspiracy
against him, XXIII 16. How could this young man get immediate
information about a conspiracy, which was concocted by a band of
zealots, and arranged in private with the high priests and elders? In
absolute secrecy lay the sole hope of success; and the conspiracy must
therefore have been imparted only to a few, and probably only the
leaders of the extreme Jewish party were aware of it. We must, I think,
infer that the nephew acquired his information in the house of some
leading Jew (to which he had access as belonging to an influential
family), and that he was himself not a Christian, for in the heated
state of feeling it may be taken as practically certain that a Christian
would not have had free and confidential entry to the house of one of
the Jewish leaders. But, further, if Paul's nephew were trusted with
such a secret, it must have been assumed that he was hostile to Paul.
Now, as Paul himself says, he had been brought up in strict Judaic
feeling, not as a Sadducee, accepting the non-Jewish spirit, but as a
Pharisee; and we must infer that the spirit of his family was strongly
Pharisaic. The whole history of the Jews shows what was likely to be
the feeling among his parents and brothers and sisters, when he not
merely :became a Christian, but went to the Gentiles. Their pride was
outraged; and we should naturally expect that such a family would regard
Paul as an apostate, a foe to God and the chosen race, and a disgrace to
the family; his own relatives might be expected. to be his most bitter
enemies. Looking at these probabilities, we see a special force in
Paul's words to the Philippians, III 8, that he had given up all for
Christ, "for whom I suffered the loss of all things and do count them
but refuse". These emphatic words suit the mouth of one who had been
disowned by his family, and, reduced from a position of wealth and
influence in his nation to poverty and, contempt.
Perhaps it is some terrible family scene that made Paul so keenly alive
to the duty owed by a father to his children. Probably nothing in
family life makes a more awful and lasting impression on a sensitive
mind than a scene where a respected and beloved parent makes a demand
beyond what love or duty permits, and tries to enforce that demand by
authority and threats. If Paul had to face such a scene, we can
appreciate the reason why he lays so much stress on the duty of parents
to respect their children's just feelings: "ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath; but bring them up in the education and admonition of
the Lord"(VI 4): "fathers, provoke not your children, lest they lose
heart"(Col. III 21). Not every person would think this one of the most
important pieces of advice to give his young societies in Asia Minor.
But, according to our conjecture, Paul had good cause to know the harm
that parents may do bynot reasonably considering their children's
desires and beliefs. At the same time he strongly emphasises in the
same passages the duty of children to obey their parents, and sets this
before the duty of parents to their children. That also is
characteristic of one who had been blameless as touching all the
commandments (Phil. III 6), and who therefore must have gone to the
fullest extreme. in compliance with his father's orders before he
announced that he could comply no further.
3. PERSONALITY. While Luke is very sparing of personal details, he
gives us some few hints about Paul's physical characteristics as bearing
on his moral influence. As an orator, he evidently used a good deal of
gesture with his hands; for example, he enforced a point to the Ephesian
Elders by showing them "these hands"(XX 34). When he addressed the
audience at Pisidian Antioch, or the excited throng of Jews in
Jerusalem, he beckoned with the hand; when he addressed Agrippa and the
distinguished audience in the Roman governor's hail, he "stretched forth
his hand". This was evidently a characteristic and hardly conscious
feature of his more impassioned oratory; but, when more quiet and simple
address was suitable (as in the opening of his speech to the Ephesian
EIders, before the emotion was wrought up), or when a purely
argumentative and restrained style was more likely to be effective (as
in addressing the critical and cold Athenian audience, or the Roman
procurator's court), no gesture is mentioned. On the other hand, in the
extreme excitement at Lystra he "rent his garments"; and in the jailor's
critical situation, XVI 28, Paul called out with a loud voice. Wherever
any little fact is mentioned by Luke, we can always observe some special
force in it, and such details must have had real importance, when an
author so brief and so impersonal as Luke mentions them; and they are
very rare in him. Alexander tried to obtain a hearing from the Ephesian
mob by such a gesture; and the din, as they howled like a lot of
dervishes, is set before us strongly by the fact that speaking was
impossible and gesture alone could be perceived. Peter, when he
appeared to his astonished friends in Mary's house after his escape,
beckoned to them to make no noise that might attract attention and
betray his presence. Otherwise such gestures are mentioned only where
the hand is stretched out to aid or to heal or to receive help.
text from Ramsey's study
ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER
AND THE ROMAN CITIZEN
BY
W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE HUMANITY, ABERDEEN
ORD. MITGLIED D. KAIS. DEUTSCH. ARCHΤOLOG. GESELLSCH. 1884
HON. MEMBER, ATHENIAN ARCHEOLOG. SOC., 1895; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF
CLASSICAL ARCHΦOLOGY AND FELLOW OF EXETER AND OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD
LEVERING LECTURER IN JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, 1894
TENTH EDITION
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
LONDON MCMVII
~~~~~~~~
In conclusion, it is clear that Saint Paul was given the gift of
languages after his enlightenment and that he was, even before his
conversion, conversant in more than one language, even from birth, as a
member of a unique Jewish Pharisaical communiity in Greco-Roman Tarsus.
It is clear that, in the Balkans as elsewhere, he spoke both in the
Synagogues and to various other groups inclusive of ordinary people on
the street and nobility in exalted halls. Although he spoke to nobility
and rulers, and came from a well to do background, he chose to make his
living by the work of his hands and from taking charity in his work as
an apostle. He was not sexist. Extant are the sermons he preached in
public accompanied by Saint Thekla, "Equal to the Apostles" "First
Martyrwoman". Since Paul was form Tarsus and Thekla from Silifke (by
the way , her home town is a pilgrimage site from early Christian
times), one can assume the two of them could easily communicate with one
another. :
The source for this Canon by St. John of Damascus, as for the other
texts of the feast, is the Acts of Paul and Thekla. This is an ancient
New Testament apocryphal text which probably dates from the middle of
the second century. It was known to Tertullian and exists in numerous
Greek
manuscripts and in many versions, Latin, Coptic, Syriac and Armenian.
The most recent English version is to be found in J.K. Elliot's The
Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford 1993].
http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/Thekla_Equal_To_The_Apostles_And_First_Martyr.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/TheklaCan.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/24sept.htm
Take a look at one translated fragment of the text online attributed to
be about Thekla instead of Pelagia:
THE SAINT PACHOMIUS ORTHODOX LIBRARY
note: This document is in the public domain. Copying it is encouraged.
THE MARTYRDOM OF ST. PELAGIA OF CAESAREA
translated from the Ge'ez by Edgar J. Goodspeed, 1904
THE "EPISTLE" OF ST. PELAGIA OF CAESAREA
[EDITOR'S NOTE: There are a number of Orthodox saints named Pelagia; the
life of Pelagia of Caesarea has been preserved only in an Ethiopic
version. The
curious title "epistle" evidently refers to the fact that the story
takes place in apostolic times and features St. Paul as its main
character. One has the impression
the text may even be a fragment from a lost version of the Acts of Paul
and Thekla. -N. Redington]
The Epistle of Pelagia. When Paul came to the region of Caesarea, he
taught again there also the way of the Lord, according to his custom
always; and they, [even] every
man of the city, who doubted and did not believe in law, because they
were not of it, reviled Paul, and they took him and seized him, and put
him in bonds, saying to him,
Thou hast brought unto us a law that is not ours. And he said to them,
But ye also were not born of old, [that ye should] judge me. But now,
what man seeketh of old--doth
he not seek what is right and good? As said the prophet David, "Know ye,
know ye, that I am, and there is no other Lord beside me, saith God." --
Ask your fathers and they will tell you,
and your elders and they will inform you,
whether there was anyone before him who did a wonder,
and whether there was after him a creator of the universe,
and there is none beside him.
He is from before the world,
and he is after the world.
He is of old also,
and he is now,
and there is no god beside him;
who spread out the heavens as a bowl,
and will roll them up like a scroll;
and everything decayeth and passeth away,
but he is God, and his years also fail not.
To him we will bow down,
and him we will praise,
and his might we will hallow,
and his name we will worship, and we will bow down.
And then the judge wondered, and he despised him, and let him go. And
Paul departed toward the mountain. And as he walked there, Paul found a
lion, and his height was
twelve cubits, and his size as that of a horse. And he met Paul, and
they saluted each other as though they knew each other. And the lion
said unto Paul, Well met, Paul,
servant of God, and Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ! I have one thing
which I ask thee to do unto me. And Paul said unto him, Speak; I will
hear. And the lion said, Make
me to enter among the mature Christians. And Paul took him and made him
to enter among the mature Christians. And when he had finished the law
of the seventh day,
[then] they bade each other farewell. And again Paul returned to the
city.
And a certain man said to him, My brother, who is older than I, is dead;
and come, make a prayer in my house. And then Paul went and found him
that was dead, and he
said, What aileth you? Do not weep, be silent. And Paul began to pray,
and he said, My Lord Jesus Christ, who art not slow to do good, wherever
they call upon thee, and
name thee, thou art there, but there is not one that seeth thee, and
that is able to see thee. For the sake of men shew thine eternal
wonders, that man may not doubt and
say, Where is this lord who is named the lover of men? Do thou, O Lord,
give life to this man, for from thee is every gift; and even if that
which thou hast given repent thee,
do not take away the faith which thou hast given us. Give to this man
faith, until thy power come again, [even] they judgment which is not
found vain. And he said, Thou
man, arise. And he arose and regained consciousness and many believed,
and followed him saying, Teach us also a faith such that, when one asks,
one makes the dead
to arise and live.
And he said to them, If ye have faith in your heart, as much as a
mustard seed, then ye shall say to this mountain, Depart, and it will
depart. See ye that faith saves in
everything. And they said unto him, May we also hear it, we seek of
thee.
And he began to teach them; and he said to them, See Rahab, the harlot,
that by her faith she entered into the kingdom of heaven. And see that
the three children were
saved by their faith from the fire. See ye that by faith he saves. And
by his faith Daniel was saved from the mouth of the lions. See ye
Ezekiel the prophet; he was saved
from the pit of clay. See Thekla, that by her faith she escaped from the
fire and the mouth of the lions. See Abraham, that for his faith God
said to him, My friend. See
Isaac, that by his faith he was saved from the sword of and from the
altar of sacrifice, and Isaac heard him who spoke. And see Joseph, that
by his faith he escaped from
the pit and from his brethren and from the hand of Pharaoh, the king,
and he became ruler. And why should I tell you of other prophets, and of
our fathers also who pleased
God? And see his brethren and his chosen ones; Elijah, who ascended
alive into the heavens, and his creator made him ascend in a chariot of
fire, with horses of fire
drawing him at his command. And by his faith Elijah asked of God that it
should not rain upon the earth three years and six months, and it was
so. And see Elisha, who by
his faith, healed a leper, when he asked, and made the dead also to
live, and this by entreating Jesus Christ.
And now also my brethren, believe with all your heart and with all your
strength and with all your soul, that Christ, God the Father and Son and
Holy Spirit, is one God, and
all that ye ask he will give you and do for you. But I say unto you, if
you believe that the Lord is God and do not do his will, your faith is
vain; and what doth it profit to
believe, if ye do not the will of him in whom ye have believed? Behold,
see, the demons also believe that God is Lord, and do not do his will.
According, therefore as they do
not do his will and do not keep the commandment of God, they are vain.
But if therefore ye believe that Christ is God, ye shall not steal, ye
shall not commit adultery, and
ye shall not worship idols, and ye shall not swear, and ye shall not
covet your neighbor's substance; and honor thy father and thy mother,
and fear God with all thy heart
and with all they strength and will all thy soul. Thou hast no other
beside him, and he is thy creator, and thy father's creator; besides
Jesus thou hast no other god. And of
the fruits of thy house give unto the poor; the first fruits of thy
harvest bring to the house of the Lord thy God.
And while Paul was proclaiming this commandment and teaching thus,
[there were] many moreover who believed and renounced this world and
followed the commandment
of the Lord, and they followed Paul. And a woman whose name was Pelagia,
daughter of the king, heard, and she renounced her husband and followed
the exhortation of
Paul. And her husband heard, and he told the king. And the king met Paul
and said to him, Behold thou art corrupting for us all our people, and
all, when they hear thine
admonition, renounce the world. The husband also renounces his wife, and
the wife also renounces her husband. And now also thou shalt pay for
everything which thou has
done unto that Thekla [another version of the text has "Pelagia"]. And
he commanded that they should cast Paul into prison; and they did as the
king commanded.
And they set a lion in ambush for Paul in the theater, and they set in
ambush the one whose height was twelve cubits, and his size that of a
horse, the one that had met
Paul, that Paul had made to enter among the mature Christians. And when
they brought this lion and the king saw him, he marveled at his size,
and said, Come now, we
have found this day one that will devour Paul. And they brought Paul
from the prison, and they brought him into the theater. And after Paul
they brought the lion in to him.
And it seemed to them that he would devour him, and they all said, But
this day hath Paul met that which will punish him.
And Paul stretched forth his hands and prayed; the lion also prayed
after him; and Paul worshiped and the lion also worshiped with him. And
when they had finished
glorifying and praying, Paul also turned and said to the lion, Well met!
and the lion also said to Paul, Well met, our father, well met!
And Paul said to the lion, How [is it] that thou wast caught, who art so
great? And the lion also said unto Paul, Thou also, behold thou wast
caught, and they brought thee
that I might devour thee. Did they not know that we were dear to one
another? We are servants of our Lord. And after they had seen him
talking with Paul, they all wondered
and said, Great is the faith of this man; even the beast of the field
obeys him, and people harken to him. And they said, Now take Pelagia,
but let him go with his lion. And
the lion and Paul departed.
And then they said, every one, There is a cow of brass; and kindle it,
and let them cast her into it, or let her be obedient to her husband,
and be like ordinary people. And
they brought also the cow of brass, and they began to cast her into it.
And at that moment there rained rain and extinguished it. But she wished
to enter in. And when the
husband saw her willingness to enter in, he took a sword and fell upon
it on his face and died, because the beauty of Pelagia was wonderful,
and she did not consider her
beauty, and did not regard this passing world.
May her prayer be with our father John and prepare the portion of his
habitations with the victorious martyrs. Amen
~~~
The St. Pachomius Orthodox Library, Pascha 1995 (Fasika 1988 Ethiopian)
Have mercy, O Lord, upon Thy servants the translator Edgar and the
scribes James, Nigel, Paul, Richard, Shelly, and William!
~~~~~~~~
One text of the Acts of Saint Paul and Thekla is online:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/thecla.html
It is also clear that Saint Paul loved Macedonia, returning there by
choice and for matters of security. There is something that is very
compelling to look at online, and that is the remains of a FIRST CENTURY
grave of a Jewish woman whose grave contents included an article
indicating she was a Christian. The remnants, somewhat uniquely, of
connections with Jerusalem, Sinai and the desert monastic and other
traditions of the Holy Land are present today in the traditions of the
Macedonian Church. But, to see the grave of the Jewish woman from
Macedonia, perhaps the fruit of the work of the Apostles, go to:
http://www.zic.gov.mk/kultura/items.htm
I can say from my own experience looking at the archeological evidence
of first century of Christianity in Macedonia, the majority of official
epigraphy is in Latin. But, St. Paul spoke and lived among the
So what's my guess, you might very well ask? The answer is that he
probably translated his own texts into Syriac and Greek. He was ,
after all, a former Pharasee who had spent much time in Damas. Since
Paul was from Tarsus, a cosmopolitan city in its time, and because he
had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit and intended to preach to
Gentiles as well as the Jews, the real answer to what language he wrote
in, considering that this is what he did in real life, is......in
WHATEVER LANGUAGE the person addressed was most familiar. To the
Hebrews, Hebrew. To the Corinthians, Greek....to the Illyrians,
proto-Albanian.....etc.
Galina
Ilya Talev
spoke "Proto-Albanian", I just wonder
what grammar book he used for the Macedonian
language - Horace Lunt's or by Blazhe Koneski's.
IT
oh...@my-dej.com wrote:
> As a Roman, Paul had a nomen and\prцnomen, probably taken from the Roman
> officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest
> in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen:
> there is no reason to think he was an Цmilius (as some suggest). Paul
> was, in the second place, a "Tarsian, a citizen of a distinguished
> city"(XXI 39, IX 11). He was not\merely a person born in Tarsus, owing
> to the accident of his family being there: he had a citizen's rights in
> Tarsus. We may confidently assume that Paul was careful to keep within
> demonstrable law and custom, when he claimed to be a Tarsian citizen in
> describing himself to the Tribune. According to the strict
> interpretation of the Roman law, the civitas superseded all other
> citizenship, but this theoretical exclusiveness was op- posed to the
> Imperial spirit; and it is clear that Roman cives in a provincial city
> commonly filled the position of high- class citizens, and even had
> magistracies pressed upon them by general consent. Now, if Paul's
> family had merely emigrated to Tarsus from Judea some years before his
> birth, neither he nor his father would have been "Tarsians,"but merely
> "residents"(incolц). It is probable, but not certain, that the family
> ORD. MITGLIED D. KAIS. DEUTSCH. ARCHФOLOG. GESELLSCH. 1884
>
> HON. MEMBER, ATHENIAN ARCHEOLOG. SOC., 1895; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF
> CLASSICAL ARCHЦOLOGY AND FELLOW OF EXETER AND OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD
June R Harton
<oh...@my-dej.com> wrote
> vs wrote:
> > What language did St Paul use to send his letters in Makedonia ?
> Good question. The apostles were given the gift of languages in order
> to preach the Word. In the following passage, Mark 16, 9-20, definitely
> accepted by the Orthodox Church, we see the following. Tongues means
> languages in this context, btw.:
>Likewise, he understood Macedonian and had Macedonian
>traveling companions
Listen here creature of the Evil one....cease your sillyness and
commie-minded filth. You are non-Othodox, simply a mindless
schismatic heretic.
oh...@my-dej.com
Ilya Talev wrote:
>
> Since Galina has already established that St Paul
> spoke "Proto-Albanian",
among others. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, of course.
I just wonder
> what grammar book he used for the Macedonian
> language - Horace Lunt's or by Blazhe Koneski's.
Saint Luke was a Macedonian and some of their travels were together.
> > As a Roman, Paul had a nomen and\prЖnomen, probably taken from the Roman
> > officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest
> > in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen:
> > there is no reason to think he was an жmilius (as some suggest). Paul
> > was, in the second place, a "Tarsian, a citizen of a distinguished
> > city"(XXI 39, IX 11). He was not\merely a person born in Tarsus, owing
> > to the accident of his family being there: he had a citizen's rights in
> > Tarsus. We may confidently assume that Paul was careful to keep within
> > demonstrable law and custom, when he claimed to be a Tarsian citizen in
> > describing himself to the Tribune. According to the strict
> > interpretation of the Roman law, the civitas superseded all other
> > citizenship, but this theoretical exclusiveness was op- posed to the
> > Imperial spirit; and it is clear that Roman cives in a provincial city
> > commonly filled the position of high- class citizens, and even had
> > magistracies pressed upon them by general consent. Now, if Paul's
> > family had merely emigrated to Tarsus from Judea some years before his
> > birth, neither he nor his father would have been "Tarsians,"but merely
> > "residents"(incolЖ). It is probable, but not certain, that the family
> > ORD. MITGLIED D. KAIS. DEUTSCH. ARCHтOLOG. GESELLSCH. 1884
> >
> > HON. MEMBER, ATHENIAN ARCHEOLOG. SOC., 1895; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF
> > CLASSICAL ARCHжOLOGY AND FELLOW OF EXETER AND OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD
oh...@my-dej.com
Ilya Talev wrote:
>
> Since Galina has already established that St Paul
> spoke "Proto-Albanian", I just wonder
> what grammar book he used for the Macedonian
> language - Horace Lunt's or by Blazhe Koneski's.
>
> IT
If you have a copy of the Epistle to the Illyrians, I would like to
borrow it
>
> oh...@my-dej.com wrote:
>
> > vs wrote:
> > >
> > And they
June R Harton
wrote
> Ilya Talev wrote:
> > Since Galina has already established that St Paul
> > spoke "Proto-Albanian",
> among others.
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
http://www.aggreen.net/orth_links/orthlink.html
>Gail the schismatic heretic and awful lying whore to history and truth
>wrote
Wow! Now here's an Orthodox Christian greeting that I've never heard before!!
I must have missed it in my Greek Church catechism!! What spirit it projects!
What love! What compassion!
Al
Voyager
http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/
http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/PageData/list_of_inscriptions.htm
http://www.ancientgreece.com/
http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/06/en/politics/top/top000.html
http://www.macedonia.com/greek/
http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/history/index.html
MACEDONIA MEANS GREECE
Well again !!!!!!!!!!!
I think I have to make a history lesson which is part of
every good ELEMENTARY school around the world !!!!!
When we are talking about Macedonians we are talking
about Greek people and the history of them starts the 6th
again the 6th century BEFORE Christ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Macedonians were Dorians as the Spartans were.
Macedon it's a Greek name and it means tall-man.
They were speaking Greek, having Greek education Greek
religion, Greek costumes, Greek names, and they were the
part of the Greeks who achieve to unified all the Greeks together.
Also a lot's of the greatest minds of the antiquity expect the
political and military leaders were Macedonians.like the
Aristotel and many-many others.
Alexander and Aristotel were THE Greeks as All the Macedonians
of course. If you want more just read the Aristotel.
At the Byzantine times the greatest and longest dynasty of
emperors were the Macedonian dynasty, they also were Greeks
them language was the Greek etc.
The people you call "Macedonians" are SLAVS and the Slavs
came to the Balkan's region at the 7th century AFTER Christ !!!!
Some of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty defend the
the Greek empire of the middle ages (Byzantine) in many wars
against the Slavs who were trying to invade into it.
Now we learn that Slavs can't be Macedonians for all these reasons
above.
One more time in summary.
1) Macedonians history starts at the 6th century BEFORE Christ.
2) So called Macedonians(Slavs)history starts at 7th century
AFTER Christ. 1100 years of distance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3) Macedonians language was always the GREEK !!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) So called Macedonians language is Slavonic very similar to
Bulgarian language.
Now about the latest history.
The Republic of Macedonia was a Tito's creation and it had to
do with his plans to come down to the Aegean sea.
Tito name this part of the formal Yugoslavia as Macedonia after
the second world war for this reason.
The name of this country before that was Bardarska Banovina.
Of course Titto change everything since then and he started teaching
the kids of this country that they come from Alexander the Great
and they are the great Macedonians for the reason above.
After the fall of the communism in Europe the Americans having
many interests and plants for the region pushed things for the
independence of all the formal Yugoslavia federal countries.
They used Macedonia as a tool to blackmail Greece and to
achieve to push Greece to give them the things they wanted
the way they wanted.
Like the issue of the new NATO military bases in Greece the
oils of the Aegean sea, and of course the silence and cooperation
of Greece during the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, which was the
major targets of the USA in it's effort to put it's foots into the Balkans.
There was even CIA agents around this area those years who trying
to find very poor people and they offered them 10000$ to each
person to sign that they are not Greeks but........."Macedonians".:-)))))
The....."Agency" !!!!!
The operation of the CIA to find in northern Greece co-called Macedonians
(Slavs) started at Jen 1994 and the head was the vice-consul of the
American consulate of Thesaloniki David Shuler.
David Shuler except of a vice-consul he was also a CIA official with
specialty in the destabilization of countries and regimes.
Of course this operation was under the knowledge and the protection
of the consul Mrs Myriam Hughes and the ambassador of the American
Embassy of Athens Thomas Nils.
At January 1994 David Shuler met at the only cafe of a small village
outside Florina (Meliti) some Slavs and give them 100000$ and orders
to work on this project finding "Macedonians" (Slavs) in Greece.
Those persons were P.Voscou, Z.Bulef, I. Pasov, D.Dumutriou.
Those 100000$ was the reward of these 4 persons for their work on
this operation.
After this Shuler and his assistants traveled all around Northern Greece
and they found some people (old the most of them and, very poor, and
with less of without education at all), and he persuade them that some
of their grandfathers were "Macedonian" :-))))) giving them 10000$
He give them to sing a paper in Greek and in English which the most of
them were unable to read.
He took all these papers and he send it to the State Department.
The Greek authorities used to follow all the actions of Shuler's team, from
the beginning until the end, but they didn't arrested him for obvious
reasons.
Shuler also after this job he worked in Thrace and he did terrible things
there.
Some time and when Shulers activities became to extraordinary, and
very dangerous, the Greek government call the consul Hughes and ask her
to stop these activities of Shuler.
M.Hughes answer that Shuler is a young man and he has no experience
and he did some bad and wrong things etc.
You know the usual bullshit.
Now about the future
If you are watching the news you should know that after the end of the
war in Kosovo Greece buy everything inside F.Y.R.O.M. even the
central bank of this country, of course under the oversight of the
Americans.
I'm sure that there will be absolutely no problem between the
Greece and the F.Y.R.O.M and i think that the people of this
country are smart enough to understand that Greece is the best
ally for them as Greece never thread them.
On the contrary Albanians and Bulgars used to thread them a lot.
There's no hard feelings about the people of FYROM in Greece
and i think that they are starting to understand that all these are some
of the idiotic things Titto and some stupid nationalists put them in
the head.
There's still some people like this and they used to say this stupid
things which are ridiculous, and that's a problem but i think it will
not be a serious one, i don't think that they are SO stupid !!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure that the people and the politicians of FYROM knows that,
so the future will be excellent for both sides.
Balkans need the peace and i'm sure that's what the Fyromian
people need and want.
Voyager.
I feel pity sometimes, for the people who
read one or more newspapers, and they think
that they know what really happens in the world.
Thomas Jefferson
Former U.S. President.
Friendly
Voyager.
June R Harton
AI wrote
> >Gail the schismatic heretic and awful lying whore to history and truth
> before!!
> I must have missed it in my Greek Church catechism!!
> What spirit it projects!
> What love! What compassion!
I take it you prefer Gail's covert commie-minded evil.
SHE is like a hand-maiden of the Evil One.....or hadn't you noticed?
from: Spirit of truth
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>>......The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
>>
>Bat pellets!! The heart of Makedonia is the FYROM, and that has never been
>Greek except for some time of invasion.
>
Then why are all the major sites of ancient Macedonia, such as Pella,
the capital, within Greece?
The present-day FYROM was a marginal area in ancient times. It's true
that it was the heart of the *Bulgarian* empire of Tsar Samuel...
oh...@my-dej.com
He's my biggest fan on the internet.
June R Harton
> He's my biggest fan on the internet.
Don't be silly, Gail....your filth is known by everyone:
" "Galina" wrote
> lak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > ohrid the HORRID WHORE wrote on 8/29/2000
> > > Shortly afterwards, he was accosted and beaten in New York
> > > very close to his apartment by two Greek guys who asked him if he was
> > > Boris Docevski before hitting him.
> > You fucking propagandist, agent of provocation, spinner of tales.....
> > I challenged his account at the time and asked him to provide evidence
> > that he even mentioned it to the Police. The dead give away of course,
> > was, that it was not a complaint he made to the News Group but a brag:
> > He claimed that 2 Greeks accosted him and asked him if he was Boris
> > Docevski and when he answered Yes they TRIED to attack him but....
> > brave Doris the Prick Inspector turned around and beat them to a pulp
> > and left them there lying on the street unconscious.
> Ah, so you do remember the horrid incident.
You, Orthodox, why have you failed to handle this filth, Gail, in your
midst? I told you to handle her! Do it. And get her to stop her cross-
posting in our Ngs!"