Friday, February 7, 2025

Lincoln, Francis Ferdinand, Kennedy


Is there some kind of connection?

Heads of state assassinated. More than these three. (Hoch Dollfuss!)

But there is a chronology thing ... from Lincoln to Kennedy, the time is 100 years, 7 months, 8 days excluding the end date.

Now, the two other spaces up to and from Francis Ferdinand come fairly close to half.

Lincoln to Francis Ferdinand = 49 years, 2 months, 14 days excluding the end date.

Francis Ferdinand to Kennedy = 51 years, 4 months, 25 days excluding the end date.

Now, is there any other then chronological connection? I think so.

Lincoln wanted slavery to end and not to be replaced with Racism (no, not Xenophobia. Racism.) Also not to be replaced with Carpetbaggers, I think, but I could have got that wrong.
Francis Ferdinand wanted Serbs and Muslim Bosniaks to live in peace with each other and with Croats.
Kennedy went after the Deep State. And C. S. Lewis, whose death was overshadowed by the assassination, one hour later, went after fashionable Atheism and Liberal Theology./HGL

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Fourteenth Amendment ...


Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.


Text of the Citizenship Clause:

Constitution of the United States: Fourteenth Amendment
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


A certain lawyer just said that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the FULL jurisdiction of it. As opposed to some legal limbo, presumably.

Given the year, as originalist, one would arguably rather say "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as opposed to that of Liberia. Or that of the homecountry of the parents, if one was born during a visit and they moved back home.

If I had stayed in Austria from my birth to my eighteenth birthday, I would arguably have had, not automatic Austrian citizenship, but at least an eligibility for application, and this kind of rule was modelled on the Fourteenth Amendment. Another part of it, clearly related, is, one is a citizen of the state in which one resides. Presumably, if you move from Texas to Oklahoma, as an US Citizen, you cease to be a Texan and become an Oklahoman, with presumably some delay for paperwork.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


In other words, admit personhood of the unborn, and you are legally obliged to a total ban of abortion./HGL

Friday, January 24, 2025

"If you are a good king, things will be all right" (GRRM resumes the political thought of Tolkien and dismisses the notion)


Answering GRRM on JRRT's character Aragorn · "If you are a good king, things will be all right" (GRRM resumes the political thought of Tolkien and dismisses the notion)

Actually, Chesterton had a share of GRRM's scepticism.

See this line in a play called Blondel the Troubadour, which takes place in a novel called The Return of Don Quixote, the words being in the mouth of King Richard:

Shall I who sing with the high tree-tops at morning
Sink to be Austria; even as is that brute
And brigand that entrapped me, or be made
A slave, a spy, a cheat, a King of France?
And what crowns other shadow this the earth?
The evil kings sit easy on their thrones
Shame healed with habit; but what panic aloft
What wild white terror if a king were good!
What staggering of the stars; what prodigy.
Men easily endure an unjust master
But a just master no man will endure
His nobles shall rise up, his knights betray him
And he go forth, as I go forth, alone.


I happen to be born in Austria and so not quite sharing the sentiments of Richard Coeur de Lion in the play, at least not the ones about Austria.

But the point in the play is not the badness of Austria, alias Duke Leopold V, or supposed such, it's the comparison between Richard, valiant knight, and his brother John Lackland, capable of marrying off his daughter Joan before her eleventh birthday to a man (king of Scotland) who maybe didn't consider that in such cases waiting with consummation could be a thing, which led her to a less than satisfactory married life, and probably contributed to provoke the Pope Gregory IX to make 12 the legal minimum for a marriage valid and consummate for a girl (with some dispensations possible).

The other point is, Richard, the good king, was a failure. The play centres on a conspiracy theory according to which Richard didn't leave his reins to John by dying, but by going into exile ... because the good king was so much more opposed than the evil king.

So, I guess, apart from the more technical quibbles on taxation policies of Aragorn, GRRM had a fair point. A good king can be a blessing for the land if accepted. But it is likely that a good king is a disaster because rejected. Now, the fact is, the function of a king is to both symbolise and practically arrange the moral unity of his people. Even if he's not elected, he has a certain mutual agreement with his "constituents" ... if they are very bad, a good man cannot succeed in becoming and remaining, and that effectively and not as a puppet, their king. Precisely as if he is very bad, he won't be a success with a decently good people.

England in the time of the War of the Roses was hardly sufficiently bawdy (at least not about people better considered than peasants, confer the provocation against Wat Tyler) to fully accept the kind of royalty depicted by GRRM in Westeros. Edward II lost his crown due to sodomy or suspicion thereof. And the actual real life inspirations behind GRRM, as enumerated by Nancy Bilyeau, are not just outside the War of the Roses, but in more than one case probable smear campaigns, i e, if substantiated, it would have meant loss of power. Or even life.

The Royal Incest That Inspired the Writing of ‘Game of Thrones’
Nancy Bilyeau | Jul 26, 2019
https://tudorscribe.medium.com/the-royal-incest-that-inspired-the-writing-of-game-of-thrones-d2f8455f12ce


Less than a century later, Queen Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, was accused of incest with her brother, George, along with adultery with four men as part of the trial proceedings against her.


So, no, just as Aragorn could not have ruled in Westeros, the Lannisters could not have ruled in the England of the War of the Roses. But the thing is, what Gondor is described as is not the rotten atmosphere of Casterly Rock, we have people like Prince Imrahil and the captain of the guards Beregond and the loremaster who is a pain in the ... of a know-it-all, but not wicked and perfectly able to obey orders when insisted on, and the old woman who has some athelas. People who no doubt make the task easier for a good king than the Night's Watch killing off Jon Snow.

I think this part of GRRM's remark has also been answered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul, First Vespers
24~25.I.2025

Conversio sancti Pauli Apostoli, quae fuit anno secundo ab Ascensione Domini.

Apud Damascum natalis sancti Ananiae, qui fuit discipulus Domini, et eumdem Paulum Apostolum baptizavit. Ipse autem, cum Damasci, et Eleutheropoli, alibique Evangelium praedicasset, tandem, sub Licinio Judice, nervis caesus et laniatus, ac lapidibus oppressus, martyrium consummavit.

Chesterton's work is available on this link (the poem is around the midpoint of scrolling), here:

THE RETURN OF DON QUIXOTE
BY G. K. CHESTERTON
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Don_Quixote.txt

Wednesday, January 22, 2025

... and there was a Time when the Cross Stood for Freedom of the Young


There Was a Time When England Stood For the Cross · ... and there was a Time when the Cross Stood for Freedom of the Young

If ever Lewis XVI is canonised, given he died on January 21st, the feast of St. Agnes, I don't think his day of death or heavenly birthday is likely to be his feastday.

Because the martyrdom of St. Agnes is greater and more foundational, especially in terms of the Christian civilisation. I think it very likely that the 1000 years of Apocalypse 20 are the medium length of the reign of a saint in heaven. So, let's take the medium length of St. Agnes and the probable martyr king's reign in Heaven?

2025 2025 1720
-305-1793 +232
1720 0232 2052


If St. Agnes has reigned in heaven with Her Lord and the Spotless Lamb of God, for 1720 years (it could be 1721), for Lewis XVI it is probably 232 and for these two, the medium is 1026 years, so, Armageddon and Doomsday should already have happened.

But not only has she reigned longer. She is also foundational for Lewis XVI. There could have been no Lewis XVI without a France. There would arguably not have been a France without Sts Genevieve, Clotildis and Radegundis. And there would not only not have been a St. Genevieve without her supernatural visioconferences with St. Simon Stylites, St. Simon the Pillar Saint, there would also have been no St. Genevieve with no Christian freedom to chose one's path between marriage and monastery.

And that freedom was won by ... taking them in order of the calendar ... Sts. Cecily, Barbara, Lucy, Agnes and Agatha. Whom I ask to intercede for the daughters of Abdel-Aziz of Saudi Arabia. Dear reader, do so too!

So, it is likely that the feast day of St. Lewis XVI, if ever there is one, will be today, since yesterday is the one of St. Agnes.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Vincent
22.I.2025

PS, it could also be today would also not be free, since today is St. Vincent Deacon and Martyr. The Deacon Martyrs are obviously Stephen and Lawrence and Vincent:

Valentiae, in Hispania Tarraconensi, sancti Vincentii, Levitae et Martyris; qui, sub impiissimo Praeside Daciano, carceres, famem, equuleum, distorsiones membrorum, laminas candentes, ferream cratem ignitam aliaque tormentorum genera perpessus, ad martyrii praemium evolavit in caelum; cujus passionis nobilem triumphum Prudentius luculenter versibus exsequitur, et beatus Augustinus ac sanctus Leo Papa summis laudibus commendant.

Thursday, January 9, 2025

Celebrity Catholics in History


  • St. Albert the Great
  • St. Thomas Aquinas
  • Gilbert Keith Chesterton
  • Jacques Maritain
  • Gertrud von LeFort


I would think it is evident that ideas that Celebrity Catholics are a bad substitute for Online Evangelists is false.

Given what four of the five were doing, I would say that the idea that a big preponderance of rebuttals is not bad either. No, the exception (as far as I know) is not one of the canonised saints, it's Gertrud von LeFort./HGL

Saturday, December 28, 2024

Answering Netanyahu


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Answering Netanyahu · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Moral Clarity: Two Wrongs Don't Make One Right · Countering Kisin

1:53 but I'd actually start with the original 1:55 Moses the Jewish people uh have lived in 1:58 the land of Israel what is now the the2:01 state of Israel uh have lived here and 2:03 have been attached to this place for 2:05 about 2:06 3,500 2:08 years three and a half Millennia now for 2:11 the first two Millennia roughly of that 2:13 time uh we were living in what is 2:16 described in a text commonly known as 2:19 the Bible so the Bible describes how the 2:21 Jewish people lived on this land were 2:24 attached to this land fought off 2:26 conquerors sometimes were conquered but 2:28 stayed on their land and that uh 2:30 continued uh for a very long time until 2:33 roughly the sixth 7th Century actually 2:36 uh after the birth of Christ okay for 2:39 for roughly for 2,000 years uh we were 2:43 conquered by the Romans we were 2:44 conquered by the Byzantines they did a 2:46 lot of bad things to us but they didn't 2:49 really Exile us contrary to what people 2:51 think okay the ones the the loss of our 2:55 land actually occurred when the Arab 2:58 Conquest took place in the 7th Cent 2:59 Century the Arabs burst out from Arabia 3:02 and they did something that no other 3:04 conqueror not the Romans not the 3:06 Byzantines not the Greeks before them 3:07 not Alexander the Great nobody did 3:10 before they actually started taking over 3:13 the land of the Jewish Farmer they 3:15 brought in military colonies that took 3:17 over the land and gradually over the 3:19 next two Century the Jews became a 3:22 minority in our land so it is under the 3:25 Arab Conquest that the Jews lost their 3:28 Homeland the Arab were the Colonials the 3:31 Jews were the natives dispossessed


Netanyahu Makes Peterson Go QUIET with PROOF that Israel Belongs To The Jewish People
Rabbi Dovid Vigler | 27 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLwtExVA7Zk


Netanyahu is here baiting and switching between Ethnic Israelites (irrespective of confession) and people of Jewish Confession (in principle irrespective of ancestry, but concretely mostly, and vastly so, Ethnic Israelites).

After AD 70, ethnic Israelites were divided between Christians and Jews and Samarians. After Constantine, there were massive conversions from Judaism to Christianity. So a farmer's ancestors in 350 AD was likely to have lived there since the return from Babylon if not more, but he was likely to be a Christian. These are the ancestors of the Ethnicity now known as Christian Palestinians.

There was a reversal under Chosroes II. When he invaded, many Christians became Jews and started persecuting those who remained Christians. When Heraclius expelled Chosroes, this reversed again. Many who had been Jewish under Chosroes preferring going to Persia over living under Heraclius. Those remaining after that can be described as Mitsrahi Jews, those of the Jewish confession.

So, when "the Arabs" came (this is somewhat of a weazel word in the context), those who got their land confiscated were people remaining Christians and Jews, and even then not all of them, meaning, a new ethnicity emerged, Muslim Palestinians. Please note, calling them Muslim Palestinians or the other groups Mitsrahi or Christian Palestinians isn't about being faithful to what they were called back then, it's a retronym. Like calling a telephone a landline, like calling music not recorded in a studio to be played later live music, even if it referred to a time when live music was all there was, like speaking of Richard Cœur de Lion as living in the Middle Ages, like speaking of Alexander the Great as dying in 323 BC. Or like calling a Romanus or Rhomaios with Constantinople as capital a Byzantine, which Netanyahu had no problem with.

The point is, while the Muslims in the Holy Land over the last centuries Netanyahu mentions got their religion from the invaders, they got their ancestry to a large part from people who had been living there since Moses. In other words, the Muslim Palestinians may have started out as 10 % Ishmaelites from the Arabian Peninsula and 90 % Israelites, both Mitsrahi and Christian Palestinian, to use the retronyms. The telltale is that Arab authorities don't classify the Muslim population of the Holy Land (vilayet Al Quds, later on), but as Mustariba, just as with the Muslim populations of Jordan or Lebanon or Syria, to use other basically retronyms. Mustariba means Arab-ised. I don't think this applies to the Arab Beduins of the Negev, by the way, but I could be wrong.

The names back then would have been Muslim, Naṣrānī or Masīḥī, Yahudi. The point is, the Muslimin back then were not simply invaders, they were also, more and more, indigenous people siding with the invader. This is why I claim, the Muslim Palestinians as an ethnicity go back to Moses. Sure, Moses was no Muslim. He was also no Druz. But Muslims of the area, as well as Druz of the area and of Lebanon just North of it, descend from people who came with Moses. Because, it is also highly probable that the Palestinian population has not been replaced since the arrival of Omar.

Zionists often like to cite the people arriving to the mandate from Jordan or Egypt or Syria. But I would venture, this whole area already became the Greater Israel prophecied in Isaiah 11 c. 2000 years ago, through Christians, mainly, but in parallel, through Jews. Why are the Jews indigenous to the Holy Land called Mitsrahi? Are you telling me they never came to the Holy Land from Egypt after a family had been away for some generations? I would say they did. And I would imagine that Muslims and Christians coming to the Mandate would have been in a similar position. They were doing a kind of Aliyah, though not that of your state.

the Jews were 3:35 dispossessed we were flung to the Far 3:38 Corners of the earth uh suffered 3:41 unimaginable suffering because we had no 3:43 Homeland but we didn't disappear


Lots of this dispersal had started way earlier. I'm very sure St. Athanasius met Jews in Trier, when he was exiled there, banishment pronounced in 335, because his Quicumque vult contains a reply to the Shema. Some would claim Jewish presence in India goes back to the time of King Solomon. Jewish presence in Persia, well, some stayed in the exile, and some more went there with Chosroes as mentioned.

Here Netanyahu is identifying "Jews" with exiles, not just to the exclusion of Christian and Muslim Palestinians, but to the exclusion or at least forgetful omission of Mitsrahi Jews.

the Arabs who had 4:06 conquered the land best basically left 4:09 it Barren they never made it their own 4:11 it was a Barren land it really had 4:13 practically it was an empty land


It was not as peopled as recently by artificial irrigation that's sapping the Jordan and the lake Kinnereth, but "barren"? Nordisk Familjebok has 4 editions, I'm going back to the first, and to 1888.

12. Nådemedlen - Pontifikat (1888)
Palestina, äfven kalladt Heliga landet l. Förlofvade landet - 605-606, 607-608, 609-610, 611-612


The article is signed H. Almkvist, e. o. Professor, shortened H.A. in the text.

Om Jordandalen se Jordan. Östjordanlandet, en ännu skogrik och fruktbar högslätt af 600 m. medelhöjd med enskilda bergstoppar till nära 1,200 m., reser sig från den djupa dalen i v. som en väldig, i några branta afsatser delad mur, hvilken blott på två ställen genombrytes af större floddalar, nämligen Jarmûk och Jabbôk (nu Wâdi-Sérka). Äfven i ö. höjer sig platån, ehuru i betydligt mindre grad, öfver den tämligen högt belägna syriska öcknen. Vestjordanlandet, som egentligen afses vid tal om P., genomskäres i hela sin längd från n. till s. af en bred landrygg på sådant sätt, att ungef. 3/4 af landets bredd falla i v. och 1/4 ö. derom. Denna ås, som i allmänhet är högst i Galiléen och lägst i Samarien. har en medelhöjd af 450 m., men äfven enstaka toppar till 1,200 m. I öfre Galiléen (n. om udden Ras-en-nakûra) gå åsens sluttningar i v. ända ned till hafvet, lemnande en strandremsa af knappt 1 km. bredd, men i nedre Galiléen vidgar sig låglandet vid kusten till 5 à 10 km. bredd. I ö. och s. ö. sammanhänger detta lågland med de stora, bördiga och historiskt ryktbara slätterna Sebulûn (nu Battôf) i n. och Megiddo- l. Jezreelslätten (nu Merdj-ibn-Amîr) i s., hvilka med en höjd af 60 till 120 m. utgöra den enda beqväma vägen från kusten till Jordandalen. Söder om Karmel utsträcker sig kustslätten, ständigt vidgande sig mot s., ända ned till P:s södra gräns med vexlande bredd af 12 till 20 km. Denna stora och bördiga slätt, som genomskäres af några små kustfloder, har numera icke något gemensamt namn, men på judarnas tid bar den norra delen, mellan floderna Nahr-Sérka i n. och Nahr-Rubîn (s. om Jafa) i s., det ryktbara namnet Sarôn (»slätt»), medan den södra delen hette Sjefelâ (»låglandet»). Mot ö. nedfaller landryggen i brantare sluttningar mot Jordandalen med smärre vattendrag (Nahr Djalûd och Wâdi el-Fâria i Samarien) och smalare, tämligen fruktbara dalgångar inom Galiléen och Samarien, medan deremot i Judéen åsen utbreder sig åt ö. till ett vildt, kalt, vattenlöst bergland, den fruktade »Juda öcken», som når ända fram till Döda hafvets strand. Söder om det egentliga Judéen, d. v. s. söder om den linie, som går från Medelhafvets sydöstra hörn öfver Beêr-Saba till Döda hafvets sydspets, öfvergå den palestinska landåsen och Juda öcken i det likaledes bergiga och öckenlika »sydlandet» (Nédjeb l. Darôma).


I'll translate ... but first, the text has 11 sentences, of a length varying between 4 and 55 words, with a medium of 35~36 words. The text is from before 1906 and 1950, so, invervocalic V sound in Swedish words is still spelled FV (Äfven), post-vocalic V sound is still spelled F (afsatser), verbs still have plural forms (3/4 = tre fjerdedelar ... falla, hvilka ... utgöra, öfvergå den palestinska landåsen och Juda öcken), and despite it being after the 1870's, the short "ä-ljud" (or open E) is still spelled E, not Ä, in at least "vexlande" and "Vestjordanlandet" ... this is the Swedish I'm being regularly heckled for, as if I were dyslexic, had a severe trauma pushing out my language capacities, were trying to sound "old" with no specific reference (indeed the opposite, you don't often find "ehuru" / "albeit" in my texts), when in fact I am simply boycotting spelling reforms, just like an American could boycott the Webster spelling and go for British "colour labelled axe" as opposed to "color labeled ax" (pronounced exactly identical, except perhaps the R). Or a Frenchman insisting on using passé simple despite a school system promoting passé composé.

About the Jordan Valley, see Jordan. The East Jordan Land, a still forested and fertile high plain of 600 m (1968.5 feet) medium height and some mountain tops to near 1200 m (3937 feet) rises from the deep vallet in the West like an enormous wall, partitioned into some steep cliffs, which only in two places is broken through by bigger river valleys, namely Jarmûk and Jabbôk (now Wâdi-Sérka). In the East too, the plateau rises, though to a clearly lesser degree, above the rather highly located Syrian desert. The West Jordan Land, which is the essential meaning when speaking of Palestine, is in all its length from North to South cut through by a broad land ridge in such a way that about 3/4 or the width fall in the West and 1/4 in the East thereof. This ridge, which generally is highest in Galilee and lowest in Samaria has a mean height of 450 m (1476 feet), but also single peaks to 1200 m (3937 feet). In Upper Galilee (North of the cape Ras-en-nakûra) the slopes of the ridge in the West reach all the way to the sea, leaving a beach strip of hardly 1 km (0.62 miles) width, but in Lower Galilee, the lowland at the coast widens to a width of 5 to 10 km (3.1 to 6.2 miles). To the East and South-East, this lowland connects to the large, fertil and historically famed plains of Sebulûn (now Battôf) in the North and that of Megiddo or Jezreel (now Merdj-ibn-Amir) in the South, which, with a height of 60 to 120 m (200 to 390 feet), constitute the only comfortable way from the Coast to the Jordan Valley. South of Carmel the coastal plain stretches, always widening to the South, all the way to the South frontier of Palestine, with a varying width of 12 to 20 km (7.45 to 12.43 miles). This large and fertile plain, which is cut through by a few small coastal rivers, now has no common name, but in the time of the Jews, the North part, between the rivers Nahr-Sérka in the North and Nahr-Rubîn (South of Jaffa) in the South, the famed name Sarôn ("plain") while the Southern part was called Shefelâ ("the lowland"). To the East the land ridge falls in steeper slopes to the Jordan valley, with smaller watercourses (Nahr Djalûd and Wâdi el-Fâria in Samaria) and narrower, fairly fertile valleys within Galileee and Samaria, while by contrast in Judaea the ridge extends to the East in a wild, bare, dry mountain land, the feared "Desert of Judah", which extends all the way to the shore of the Dead Sea. South of Judaea proper, i. e. South of the line which goes from the South East corner of the Mediterranean, over Beêr-Saba to the South tip of the Dead Sea, the Palestinian land ridge and the Desert of Judah transit into the likewise mountainous and desertlike "South Land" (Nédjeb or Darôma).


So, according to a source of 1888, it was not in fact all of the Holy Land that was left barren, it was a specific area, the Judean Desert and the South Land. Was this by any negligence of the Arabs, was this fertile in Biblical times?

Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry
Matthew 4:1-2


Desert clearly named.

And David said to Saul: Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, or a bear, and took a ram out of the midst of the flock And I pursued after them, and struck them, and delivered it out of their mouth: and they rose up against me, and I caught them by the throat, and I strangled and killed them For I thy servant have killed both a lion and a bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be also as one of them. I will go now, and take away the reproach of the people: for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, who hath dared to curse the army of the living God
1 Kings 17:34-36*


Lions have a certain preference for dry land, don't they? So, desert implied with at least probability. Or, even the law:

And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert,
Leviticus 16:22


How can an all-knowing God make a law intended for not just the desert wandering, but also the soujourn in the Holy Land over 1500 or so years after those forty, up to the Cross, name "desert" in the law if the Holy Land had no desert?**

The land was only "empty" where it had already been empty in the times that Netanyahu looks back to. The idea of a "land without people" is a lie, at best a misunderstanding. It's like saying Nevada is a land without people or Utah ... naturally dry places tend to have large empty areas. Plus confusing the "Nevada" part of Palestine with the whole of it. Netanyahu is sloppy or dishonest.

  • His religious case "Moses brought us here" is equally true of Christian and even Muslim Palestinians;
  • his "Arabs displaced us" doesn't work, as a secular claim, one doesn't reconquer land one lost 1300 years earlier;
  • his "people without a land for a land without a people" is untrue (as a secular claim, if it's not a disguise for the religious claim, where it's even more untrue), since the Judean Desert and the South Land weren't meant to be very peopled and since other parts of Palestine very much were cultivated in Turkish times.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Innocents
28.XII.2024

In Bethlehem Judae natalis sanctorum Innocentium Martyrum, qui pro Christo ab Herode Rege interfecti sunt.

* Some would call the book "1 Samuel" and what they would call "1 Kings" is what we call "3 Kings". ** Given the fertility of Samaria, I think it's obvious that the law foresaw Jerusalem and not Mount Gerasim as the place of worship.