Girgashites, who were they?

The Girgashites are in my view the most mysterious Canaanite tribe.  The five tribes only mentioned in the Table of Nations may seem like a mystery at first but they can each be solidly identified with known cities in the Akkar District of Lebanon or Syria north of Lebanon.  They are not included in the list of nations the Israelites are later to drive out of the land because they had no presence within the land. 

In Deuteronomy 7:1 and Joshua 3:10 and 24:11 and Nehemiah 9:8 the Perizzites may seem the most mysterious of those at first due to not being in the Table of Nations, but that is a designation that just means village dwellers, they are rural country folk while the city dwellers more strongly identify with their Genesis 10 tribes, probably because many started as city states who then spawned daughter cities.  Though I do like to note that the word Canaanite also means Merchant in Hebrew (that’s how it’s used in Genesis 38 despite how the KJV translates it, Judah’s wife was probably a descendent of Abraham via Keturah not Ham), so in that sense those called Canaanites in contrast to the rest in these verses could be referring to traveling merchants not tied to a specific place. 

Not every listing of the Tribes to be driven out does include the Girgashites, but they’re usually the only one missing.  And they are never mentioned in any of the actual accounts of battles fought with the Canaanites, no King is called a Girgashite and no city is ever specifically defined as Girgashite. But Joshua 24 lists them as among those driven out, so why were they never singled out?

In Jerusalem Talmud Shevit 6:1:13 Rabbi Samuel Nahman said; 

“Joshua sent three orders to the Land of Israel before they entered the Land: Those who want to evacuate should evacuate, those who want to make peace should make peace, those who want to go to war should go to war. The Girgasites evacuated, believed in the Holy One, praised be He, and went to Africa.”

The Roman era context of when The Talmud was compiled means the Roman Province of Africa may specifically be what’s meant here.  That was Mediterranean coastal regions which included most of modern Tunisia, much of the Mediterranean coast of Libya and some of Algeria.  

In the Septuagint the Hebrew letter Shin in transliteration usually becomes Sigma thus an S rather than Sh sound, an influence is still felt in the KJV of Genesis 10 where it’s Girgasite.  So Girgashite, Girgashi in the Hebrew, became Gergesaioi. 

In Greek Mythology there are a group of female monsters known as the Gorgons, a name derived from the Greek word Gorgos meaning dreadful. And they were typically placed in the far west of the known world which to the Ancient Greeks was the western Mediterranean. 

In Diodorus Siculus Library of History Volume 3 chapters 52-52 people living in Northern West Africa are discussed, including some Amazons who are distinguished from the usual Amazons of the Pontus region, Atlantians probably meaning people of the Atlas Mountains, and Gorgons who are here presented as a Matriarchal Tribe like the Amazons that merely became later mythologized as Snake Monsters. But still distinct, some modern websites attempting to construct an all encompassing Amazon lore will classify the Gorgons as a sub group of the Libyan Amazons but that’s not how Diodorus defined them.

I do not take this at face value, but I’m not as willing to dismiss it as others are either.  I think Diodorus is creatively adapting for his Greek audience traditions he learned (perhaps indirectly) from Natives in North Africa. I regrettably have my doubts whether either these Amazons or Gorgons were fully Matriarchal.  Sometimes a patriarchal society will look for any excuse to present a people they want to other as a much more feminine culture than their own. On the subject of the Gorgons, Diodorus may have read in or heard from his source a name that sounded very similar to Gorgos to him and then made that mythological connection himself.

I also believe Diodorus’s source for this is an independent version of whatever the source of Plato’s Atlantis narrative was, but Plato changed it for his purposes even more.  In Diodorus’s account the people who do what the Atlanteans did in Plato are not those called Atlantians but the Amazons.  Michael Hubner argued that Atlantis was the Souss-Massa plain in Morocco which local Berbers do call an Island. Which I think also fits well Diodorus’s Island of Hespera in the march Tritonis containing the great city of Cherronesus which is by Okeanos but not in it.

I think the place being identified as the home of these Amazons is in Morocco. And so Myrina started west of the Atlas mountains and then encountered the Gorgons when she was east of them, possibly in modern Tunsunia. 

The thing is there is no dispute that people originating from The Land of Canaan wound up in this part of Africa, it was the base of the Punic civilization whose greatest city eventually became Carthage. No Archeologists or historians dispute that the Carthaginians are from those The Bible calls Canaanites and the Greeks called Phoenicians, their language was from that Branch of the Semitic Language family and they worshiped Baal.

However Carthage being founded as a colony of Tyre specifically (and thus Sidon/Zidon in Genesis 10 terms) is primarily a product of Greek Historiography, because Tyre was to them the greatest Phoenician city and so were inclined to assume everything revolved around Tyre more than it actually did.  As a Merchant Trading Empire contact with Tyre was probably always happening, and so maybe the city of Carthage specifically had a Princess of Tyre involved in its founding or some formative event in its history. 

Really the biggest problem with my thesis here is having the earliest Phoenicians in North Africa arrive this early, my standard date for the Conquest of Canaan being older even than Ussher’s around 1600 BC. 

Utica’s founding is sometimes dated to around 1100 BC but even that ancient date is controversial.  Another settlement said to have been founded around the same time as Utca is one today called Ghar el-Meh.  Cadiz was founded as a Phoenician colony in Spain about 1104 BC, so they were planting colonies in this era. 

Archaeologists usually date Phoenician settlement in North Africa as starting around 900 BC, with Carthage’s traditional founding date being 814 BC.  

Well the simple answer is that the Talmudic quote oversimplified the timeline.  The Girgashites didn’t actively resist the Israelites but at first that didn’t immediately result in them leaving but living separately in the plains like other Canaanites not driven out right away. They may have been the Canaanites of Dor, but I have nothing solid for that. The Tjekker of Egyptian Records are an Exonym, not what they called themselves. 1100 BC is when archeologists believe the Tjekker were chased out of Dor by Phoenician, this academic use of Phoenician more specifically means the Sidonians, so one Canaanite tribe drove out another, unless my theory that these Phoenicians are sometimes Asher is true, Joshua 17:11 may imply Asher had a claim on Dor at some point. 

Dido or Elissa, the traditional founder of Carthage was, according to the sources Josephus quoted in Against Apion, a granddaughter of Jezebel’s brother.  If the stories ever say she’s younger than this I’m going to assume that poetic license, I’m going to guess she was 30-40 when left Phoenicia several years before 814 BC (if she was real at all). 

But as The Bible never refers to Jezebel;s father Ethbaal as ruling Tyre, I’m starting to question the assumption he even is the same person as the Ithobaal King of Tyre mentioned by Meander of Ephesus as quoted in Josephus. Even if the names are the name it could be a name multiple Kings would use, but they also might not be the same name. Even if the first letter is the same in the original Semitic form the lack of an “o” in the Bible in Ethbaal could be important as it could be a vowel sound not represented in Hebrew or a Vav.

In summary I think the Girgashites were the first Canaanites to come to Tunisia and founded the early forms of Utica and Gher al-Meh around either 1100 or 900 BC and then later Sidonians founded Carthage around 826-814 BC. 

Haifa belonged to Zebulun

All the Maps you tend to see of the allotment of the Land to the Twelve Tribes based on Joshua 16-19 do not give Zebulun any coastal territory.

This has always bugged me because Genesis 49:13 and Deuteronomy 33:18-19 being by the Seashore and a Heaven for Ships and possibly being merchant traders.  

According to the Midrash the banner of the Tribe of Zebulun was a Ship on a white background.  And there are other Rabbinic traditions about them being sea farers.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 5 Chapter 1 Section 22 says that Zebulun's allotment includes Mount Carmel, which on these common maps is given to Manasseh.  However Josephus's credibility is hindered her by claiming Zebulun also bordered the Sea of Galilee when in Joshua that's all Naphtali.  The Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser carried away the entire tribe of Naphtali into captivity but Zebulun is not including in any of the Assyrian captivity accounts.  So I think after that happened Zebulun sorta claims Naphtali's former territory which I think explains this mistake of Josephus any any time you see Zebulun associated with the Sea of Galilee. 

There are two places called Carmel in The Bible, there is a Carmel south of Hebron in the Judean Mountains close to the southern border of the modern West Bank.  But "Mount Carmel" always refers to a ridge of Mountains in Northern Israel in the Haifa subdistrict of the Haifa district. 

The city of Jokneam is part of that ridge. Joshua 19:10-11 and 21:34 clearly define Jokneam as part of Zebulun, but it's given to Manasseh in all these maps I've talking about.

The confusion is caused by the account of Manasseh's allotment in Joshua 17, it mentions the tribe of Asher in three verses, 7, 10 and 11 and Zebulun not at all.  The first two verses seem to say Manasseh borders Asher, and then verse 11 talks about cities in territory originally meant for Issachar and Asher that Manasseh wound up claiming, but the Canaanites were not driven from those cities anyway. Dor is typically assumed, including by me in the past, to be the one that was Asher's since other reference to this group don't include Dor and the others are right by Issachar. Since none of these are mentioned in the actual accounts of those Tribes allotment sin Joshua 19 we can't say for certain.

I have to admit, if I weren't doctrinally devoted to a belief that the Hebrew Text has been perfectly preserved, I would be inclined to theorize that all three references to Asher in this chapter were supposed to be Zebulun. It is usually Zebulun that gets paired with Issachar like this. The Septuagint and Peshitta have variants here but never in ways that add Zebulun.  Neither mention Asher in verse 7, the Septuagint says Aseb in verse 10 but does say Asher in verse 11, the Peshitta has Asher in verse 10 but not in verse 11. 

Instead what I'm going to speculate is that Asher's claim on Dor did not require land continuity with the rest of Asher's allotment since Dor was a Mediterranean port city and Asher's actual allotment was also on the Mediterranean coast.  Tel Dor btw is in the Hadera Subdistrict of the Haifa District. 

In this reinterpretation of the Tribal Borders the land of Zebulun includes the port city of Haifa.  This city is never mentioned in The Bible, but it is ancient being even a port already in the Bronze Age, but young enough to have not existed yet in the time of Joshua, so a settlement that was likely founded by Zebulunites from it's beginning.

Kadesh and Sinai, my current theory.

99% of everything in the post on Kadesh and Sinai I made last year I still stand by. You should read all of it before this. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/02/kadesh-and-sinai-were-not-in-arabia-or.html

But in that post I had not settled on a final specific theory, and there is one key thing said there I have changed my mind on, again.

I have returned to thinking Kadesh-Barnea and Meribah-Kadesh are different locations.  

The primary reason for seeing them as the same is that Barnea in Numbers 34 seems to serve the same role in defining Israel's southern border as "the Waters of Strife at Kadesh" in Ezekiel 47-48.  But if both are south of the border then that can work just fine. 

I suggested even back then that Numbers 13:26 perhaps never meant to use Kadesh as a proper place name.  And so Kadesh-Barnea in that case is only called Kadesh as if it's a place name in hindsight, after they've left it. 

And the fact is Numbers 20 does begin in every translation with language that only makes sense as saying they just arrived at this Kadesh, not that they are still in the place they had been since chapter 12 or 13.  And the wilderness they are in is now Zin no longer Paran.

Naturally this means the Kadesh in Numbers 33 (where that name is only in verses 36-37) is Meribah-Kadesh.  And indeed Paran was back in Numbers 10-12 a wilderness they entered right after leaving Hazeroth.  Meaning it would in Numbers 33 start with Rithmah and perhaps extend all the way to Ebronah. And based on the 11 days journey clue from Deuteronomy 1:2 maybe Kadehsbarnea could be identified with specifically Tahath in Numbers 33:26.

I mentioned in last's years post briefly considering Gabal Sin Bishar as Sinai/Horeb and agreeing with Ptolemy on the Wadi Feiran being Paran, I'm now going all in on that except I do think Paran as a wilderness extend beyond that River to refer to the entire Sinai south of a certain point..

As fun as the idea of Mainstream Sinai actually being Kadesh should be, I think the Mountain area from which the spies were sent to spy out the land perhaps makes most sense as Hashem el-Tarif.

I now believe Meribah-Kadesh is Ain Qedies and the Mt Hor where Aaron went to sleep is Har Karkom.   And from there they crossed into modern Jordan.  But I suppose a viable alternative in Har Karkoum as Meribah-Kadesh and then Mount Hor being the proposed site by Petra.

Nazi-CIA-Palestine Pipeline

When it comes to talking about what surviving German Nazis did after WW2, the most popular topic is Leftists talking about the Nazis who became CIA assets and operatives, Renhaird Gehlen, Klaus Barbie, Paul Dickopf and the scientists involved in Paper Clip.  

The second would be Zionists talking about the Nazis who went on to serve at the disposal of Anti-Zionist Arab Nationalists, Walter Rauff and Alois Brunner in Syria, the countless who were employed by Nasser in Egypt like Johann von Leers, and many were helping the Arab Liberation Army during the Israel-Palestine War in 1947-49 but they don't have their own Wikipedia pages.

But the thing is these two stories are not as separate from each other as one’s binary assumptions about Cold War Era allegiances would assume. For starters many escaped capture at the end of the War via the exact same Ratlines. 

The section of the Wikipedia Page for Walter Rauff on his time in Syria is unclear about exactly where he stood in relation to the various Coups that happened in Syria. This article is more specific.

https://newlinesmag.com/essays/a-nazi-taught-interrogation-tactics-to-syrians-and-egyptians/

Walter Rauff worked for Husani al-Zarim specifically the entire time he was in Syria and according to a Sami Jumaa helped Zarim carry out the March 1949 Coup. That Coup was also backed by the CIA via Miles Copeland Jr, the December Coup is what resulted in him leaving Syria. So there is little doubt in my mind that Rauff was a CIA asset during his entire post War career, both in Syria and later in Chile working for the CIA backed Pinochet. The Syrian political party that benefited from the March Coup was the SSNP, Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the same Party that later opposed Israel during the Lebanon Civil War. 

Antisemitic Conspiracy Theorists, in addition to falling for the bad leaps in logic all Conspiracy Theorists fall for, are also in blind ignorance of the fact that the U.S. “Deep State” has never been Pro-Israel. Miles Copeland, Kemrit Roosevelt Jr and Archibald Roosevelt Jr were open about how strongly Anti-Zionist they were.  The Dulles Brothers had spoken on it less explicitly but their close associations with St John Philby and James Forrestal show how they were never friends to Israel either. And OSS operative James Burnham wrote Anti-Israel articles for National Review.

Returning to the topic at hand, the CIA via Kermit Roosevelt also backed the Coup that put Nasser in power in Egypt in 1952. Many of those Nazi’s who Nasser employed were recommended to him by Gehlen. Nasser was already known to be a Fascist, he was a Green Shirt back in the 30s. Both Kermit Roosevelt and Miles Copeland remained close associates of Nasser for years.  And John Foster Dulles was responsible for the Eisenhower Administration's decision to save Nasser from Israel during the Suez Crisis, one of America’s most shameful sins.

There's also reports that Alois Brunner had been part of for the Gehlen Organization at some point.

Paul Dickopf was a known CIA asset and a life long friend of Franocis Genoud, a Swiss Banker who supported the Nazis before and during WW2 and spent his post war life funding various Anti-Zionist Arab Nationalist causes.  Among them was George Habash’s Popular Front for The Liberation of Palestine which is nominally Marxist-Lennist but in my view is really a NazBol party.  

Dickopf'a CIA ties and Genoud’s influence in the Middle East helped him become head of Interpol in 1968 which he held till 1972. His Wikipedia page avoids this topic, but there are investigations that have shown him to have been involved in Munich in 1972.  Ali Hassna Salamah, the leader of Black September is also known to have been a CIA asset since 1970. 

Now a Conspiracy Theorist would conclude from these two things that Munich was a CIA op, which I have said cheekily in some tweets and youtube comments.  But my real view is that the CIA probably didn’t intentionally cause Munich but they are absolutely culpable. 

After 1967 America’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East became officially more Pro-Israel and less Neutral.  But behind the scenes I’m convinced this true Anti-Israel agenda never went away. 

Proudhon was the Ultimate War Monger

I’ve long been confused how Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the supposedly greatest Anarchist Philosophers, was such a huge influence on Fascism and Nazism and other Far-Right ideologies. Houston Stewart Chamberlain the true ideological founder of Nazism cited Proudhon as an influence, as did Charles Maurras in creating his Integral Nationalism and so did Geroges Sorel, the Cercle Proudhon founded by Geroges Valois and Edouard Berth in 1911 is acknowledged even by Mussolini himself as where Fascism began. And I've seen contemporary self proclaimed Fascists on the internet continue to cite Proudhon as an intellectual ancestor.

But why?  Proudhon’s Misogyny, Racism and Antisemitism could be written off as being products of the Bigotry of his time and theoretically separable from the core of his ideology.  It’s not like the Nazis endorsed everyone who ever said anything Antisemitic, then they would have embraced Marx.  So even that isn’t enough to explain it.

Then I learned about Proudhon’s Philosophy regarding war. You might think it’s an innate strawman for a Pacifist to accuse anyone of being Pro-War in principle, that it's always really a matter of defending a given war as a necessary evil.  But no, Proudhon loved war, remember that speech from the Nazi villain in episode 4 of Hellsing Ultimate Abridged?  That’s Proudhon. Proudhon believed War was necessary for human development, that it would be a bad thing for War and Conflict to ever cease happening. 

Yet his Wikipedia page tries to tell people the opposite (as does the annoying Google AI Overview), not by quoting Proudhon directly but other people’s analysis of Proudhon.  So here is the book itself.

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/p-j-proudhon-war-and-peace-volume-i/

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/p-j-proudhon-war-and-peace-volume-ii/

It goes on and on about how War is innate to Human Nature, the exact opposite of what any self respecting Anarchist should believe.  And here is how it ends.

“It is here that war, sublime in its manifestations, universal in its idea, juridical and consequently providential in its mission, will amaze us still more by the certainty, and, if you will allow me the term, by the positivism of its teaching.”

That people are constantly pretending this is an Anti-War text is baffling. He also clearly refers to “the adversaries of Militarism” as those he’s arguing against.  Yes his love of War isn't exactly unconditional, he still believed you could wage War immorally.  But at its core he viewed War as in and of itself objectively a good thing.

Seriously, Proudhon should be a Gundam villain. 

The claim that he opposed Nationalism is entirely based on his support for Federalism (which is confusingly the antithesis of what the Federalist Party of the early United States advocated). The truth is Nationalism can be either Federalist or Centralist, Proudhonian Federalism is one of the things Maurras borrowed from Proudhon in defining his Integral Nationalism.

And the truth is his nominal status as the first Self identified Anarchist is a sham, if you read the details of his ideology you’ll see that he was always a Minarchist at best. Even his famous “Property is Theft” quote is one he went on to repeatedly qualify and walk back, including arguing that some degree of State Power needs to exist to protect Property Rights. 

All that on it's own does not quite create Fascism or Nazism, but when combined with Thomas Carlyle's Heroarchy by later Philosophers it becomes inevitable.

The mid 19th Century French Philosopher who was actually a forebearer of what Breadtube Anarchists believe in was Joseph Dejacque. And yet they keep name dropping Proudhon instead because of a status he holds by mere technicality. 

Proudhon’s toxic influence on Anarchism is probably why the Manifesto of the Sixteen happened, a group of Anarchists who supported WW1 on the Allies side. Even Peter Kopropkin was in that group. The Italian Anarchists who were pro-War virtually all went on to leave Anarchism and become Fascists, just like most of Italy’s Pro-War Marxists and Syndicalists. 

Fortunately most Anarchists did know better, like Emma Goldman and Italian Antifascist Enrico Malatesta.

Chronological Nativity Narrative

It continues to frustrate me how Secularists insist on seeing the two Nativity Narratives as mutually exclusive incompatible accounts even though they are not even claiming to actually depict the same events. Strictly speaking The Nativity is only in Luke. 

As a Nerd with an interest in franchises like Star Wars, Fate/Stay Night, Raildex, Haruhi and Les Habits Noirs I happen to have experience with trying to explain the most Chronological way to consume a narrative not originally told in Chronological order. And it so happens that skill can be helpful in helping people make sense of The Nativity. 

So here is my Chronological reading order.

Luke 1:5-80.

Matthew 1:18-25.

Luke 2:1-38.

Matthew Chapter 2.

Luke 2:39-52.

I have gone back and forth between different opinions on where in Luke 2 to insert Matthew 2, but I’ve settled on this simplest version for now. 

I can’t claim to know the why of all this besides how Matthew is from Joseph’s POV and Luke Mary’s (well also Zacharias and Elizabeth to a lesser extent for John’s Nativity in chapter 1).  Matthew tells stories that hinge on decisions Joseph makes, while Luke focuses on events only Mary could have the most important perspective on. 

Just as those Fictional sagas I mentioned are told out of order for a reason, I likewise think there is a reason Matthew’s Gospel was the first one written, because it’s the most geared toward a Jewish audience and Paul in Romans 1:16 and 2:9-10 said The Gospel is for The Jews first and then The Gentiles.

Women can be leaders in The Church.

The question of whether or not Women are allowed to be "Priests" or “Bishops” or “Pastors” or whatever term you prefer to use has become a hot topic again due to recent events (mainly the Schism within Anglicanism). And I’ve been forced to realize my initial posts on that topic were among the earliest on this blog, before I understood Church Polity related disputes as well as I do now. 

My position is ultimately the same, I still reject the entire concept of Monoepiscopacy as it’s currently practiced even by other Congregationalists. But to whatever extent the New Testament does permit some Believers to be leaders among fellow Believers, the distinction between Male and Female is irrelevant as demonstrated by Galatians 3. 

The office of Prophet was even in The Hebrew Bible always open to women, from Mariam to Deborah to Anna, and Joel 2 foretells that “your sons and your daughters shall prophecy” in a Prophecy quoted in Acts 2 as being fulfilled in The Church. Prophecy in The Bible is more then just predictive Prophecy, it is proclaiming The Word of God. At least in Low Church Protestantism the Pastors have always identified with Prophet over Aaronic Priests.

The Aaronic Priesthood is now irrelevant, in The New Testament all believers are Kings and Priests and our only High Priest is Christ, ALL definitely includes the Women. 

The word “Priest” as a term for Christian leaders is not supposed to have anything to do with the Hebrew or Greek terms translated that way in modern Bibles, its etymology derives from the Greek word Presbyter usually translated Elder.

I believe talk of Elders in the Church in The New Testament is about showing respect to any fellow believer who is your Senior, not an office, 1 Timothy 5 explicitly includes women in that.  So a conservative Episcopal Polity supporter will just insist that passage is about all seniors but others still ordain an office, that is simply selective reasoning. 

Bishop is a translation of Episcopas, a word that means “overseer” or “presider” and also has a verb form used in 1 Peter 5:2 which along with Acts 20:17-28 shows us that for both Peter and Paul all Elders were Overseers. 

Phoebe is a female Deacon in Romans 16:1, a word that just means servant but in Episcopal Polity denominations becomes the rank below Priest and is by these Conservatives treated just as only for women.

Romans 16 also refers to Tryphena and Tryphosa, a pair of female missionaries.  

Priscila also clearly always seems to have seniority over her husband Aquilla. 

Colossians 4:15 refers to Nympha, a leader of a local Church which the KJV changes to Nymphas and tries to make seem like a male but all scholars agree the Greek Text is referring to a Woman, even modern KJV onlyists. 

Women were the first Eyewitnesses to The Resurrection and thus the first Apostles.

Against all that greater testimony of Scripture these Conservative cling to the “women shouldn’t speak in Church” passage from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the “a woman shouldn't teach a man” passage in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Read in context 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly Paul quoting someone else to then immediately rebuke them in verse 36 “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”.  Other passages in the same Epistle clearly refer to women speaking in Church. 

I honestly haven’t made up my mind how to explain 1 Timothy 2:12, I’ve seen different approaches. What I do know is that later in the same Epistle Women are permitted to be Elders. This one verse alone can not override everything else.  

And that’s without me even getting into how this is the most disputed of all Paul’s Epistles.  I believe Paul wrote it and that there is an explanation, I just haven’t made up my mind what that is.