Carthage Must Be Destroyed

The Church’s Role in the Forming of the New Testament Canon

2011-10-29T18:23:00.011-04:00

Recently I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the early Church. Being a nerd about history I tend to invest a lot of time in such things. As anyone versed in early Church history would know, you cannot avoid running into the formation of the New Testament canon. Growing up, I never really thought about how the canon was formed. I kind of thought that God told all of the authors of the Bible to write their letter or letters and then get together and compile it into one book and tell everyone that this is God’s inspired word. This is incorrect. I don’t think that a great many Christians, even if they can see this as a silly and naive notion, can, in fact, offer up a more accurate account of the formation of the canon.

The canon, or the 27 books that make up the New Testament, was a collection of books written between AD 49 through as late as AD 95 (depending on your dating of Revelation). However, these were not the only Christian books/letters in circulation at this time. In fact the books of the canon were just 27 books in a great sea of books written by holy men of the first and second centuries. This begs two questions: Why these books and not others, and who decided what’s in and what’s out?

In brief, this is what I intend to answer.

I might be stepping on toes for this one, so feel free to be bothered and form a rebuttal.

The Apostolic Age

In the 16th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, Jesus Christ, before ascending to heaven, told His Apostles that he was sending them the Holy Spirit, who will empower them to be His “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). He did not, however, leave them with a handbook, or a list of books that need to be completed so they can be compiled into a second testament. It wasn’t even until two decades later that the first book in the canon, Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, was written. The apostles were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His words were orally passed down and spread throughout the empire. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17). Most people probably could not read at that time as it was. We do know that some of the apostles dictated to others what to say in their letters. Paul, an apostle and major author of the New Testament, valued the oral tradition greatly: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13). And again in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

We’ve all played the telephone game where one person starts with a story and then it is passed to the next person and the next, until it reaches the final person who’s retelling of the story is usually considerably different than the original. Could this same type of thing be an issue with the oral tradition of the Christians? No. The apostles, being filled with the Holy Spirit, accurately and authoritatively preached the Good News. They were protected by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. “For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a). This is an important point. The Holy Spirit is the key. Without the Holy Spirit, we would not be able to completely trust the preaching of the apostles, nor the written Gospels or epistles as inspired. I had a conversation with a friend some time ago, and he confessed to me that he has not looked into how the New Testament canon was formed because he was afraid that what he would find would shake his faith. This is understandable. If the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Jesus’s Church, then all is up for grabs and the Church could run into serious error.

Church Fathers

The year is AD 96 and the apostles have all passed on. The Bishop of Rome at this time is Clement and is, according to Paul, “a fellow laborer in Christ” (Philippians 4:3). Clement refers to the epistles of Paul, and the words of Jesus and holds them in high regard, but he never calls them Scripture. That is a term he reserves for the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). Although this is by no means substantial proof, it does seem that if the Bishop of Rome doesn’t consider certain letters to be scripture and never mentions or is unaware of the vast majority of them at this time, then it is logical to assume that oral tradition, even after the death of all the apostles, is still the main vehicle for spreading the Gospel. While the Gospels and letters are still in their infancy, it should be noted that they were being dispersed throughout the empire, and more and more Christians were becoming aware of the written teachings of Jesus.

Jump forward about 50 years. Marcion, a bishop from Sinope, a city in modern day Turkey, the villain of our story, distanced himself from the traditional conservative teachings and proposed his own canon. Although he believed Jesus was sent by God and was the Savior of the world, He believed that the God of the Old Testament was not compatible with the Church’s teachings of Jesus. He viewed YHWH to be a lesser deity, jealous and bent on unfairly judging men for their sins, and that the Heavenly Father, spoken of by Jesus, was compassionate and full of mercy. Therefore he believed that Jesus Christ was not the fulfillment of Old Testament Law nor the second Moses, for they were not of the same God. In fact he believed Judaism to be utterly opposed to Christianity. He believed that the New Testament canon should comprise of only ten of Paul’s letters and Luke’s Gospel, both of which he personally edited out things of which he didn’t agree. This of course created a huge controversy that ultimately led to Marcion’s ideas being deemed heretical by the early Church. It also forced the Church to deal with the issue of what was the true biblical canon.

In the next couple of centuries, Church Fathers started compiling their own lists of books that should be included in the canon. Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century included the three Synoptic Gospels, but doesn’t mention John’s. He also quotes the apostles from unknown works that are not in the New Testament canon, such as a fire in the Jordan River during the Baptism of Jesus. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was taught by Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, deems the four Gospels the only true gospels and attacks those who only accept one.

A late 2nd century canon was found to be very similar to that of the current New Testament with the following exceptions, it includes the Book of Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter (with reservation), and does not mention anything about Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, and only accepts two epistles of John. The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as a worthy book, but that it should not be read during worship. By the beginning of the 3rd century, a pattern of among the many different canons started showing that although some include this one or that one and exclude in like fashion, generally they all excepted the canonicity of the modern day New Testament, with slight reservation for Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Revelation, with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being established as the the only true Gospels. Some of the other books to be included in various local canons were the Gospel of Barnabas, Didache, which gave directions on the Eucharist, I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, the Acts of Paul, and many others that have been lost and are only mentioned by early Church leaders. St. Athanasius, who famously fought Arianism and helped bring about the Nicene Creed, also proposed a list that contained, in entirety, the same 27 books in the current canon.

In AD 383, 353 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, the Latins get down to business and make it happen. Between the efforts of Pope Damascus I, St. Jerome and St. Augustine of Hippo, the canon in the west officially comes to a consensus. The Pope commissioned the new Latin translation, called the Vulgate, to replace the older Latin texts. This translation, largely produced by the efforts of St. Jerome, had in its canon the Latin translation of the Septuagint and only the 27 books that we know of as the New Testament. In AD 397, St. Augustine called together the Council of Carthage in part to authoritatively establish the official New Testament canon, which he already thought was agreed upon by all, but was not officially recognized. The canon was accepted and closed on August 28, 397.

The Eastern Church was more reluctant to come up with a canon. They appreciated the gradation of quality of books and were not fond of the idea of a canon which makes the sharp contrast between accepted books and those left out. By the 5th century, their canon matched that of the Latins.

Recent History

Things were peachy for a while, but 1,000 years later, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation challenged the canon of the Vulgate and removed some of the books of the Septuagint from the Protestant canon. Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because he perceived that they went against his doctrines of Grace alone and Faith alone. James especially troubled him, because the only place where “faith alone” is mentioned in the Bible is in James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” These books are now mentioned last in the German Luther Bible. Everybody had to officially affirm their canons–the Catholics at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Church of England in the 39 Articles in 1563, and in the Westminister Confession of Faith for Calvinists in 1647.

Why Only These 27 Books?

This is impossible to answer outside of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. If it were not for Jesus’s promise to send a Helper, we would have absolutely no confidence in the Scriptures. Just think if the House of Representatives and the Senate were ones to try to agree up a canon. All sorts of books would have slid in or have been removed because of favors, lobbyists, and public opinion. Now as much as the men and woman of the legislative branch of the United States are similar in human nature to the men of the Council of Carthage, there is no Holy Spirit guiding Congress. Congress can make grave mistakes (of which we are pretty aware), but Jesus has promised us that He will build His Church and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), and that the Holy Spirit would Sanctify and give life to the Church. “The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church). It was men who chose the canon, but chosen through the working of the Spirit by the grace of Jesus Christ. What is included in the Bible is accepted by Christians in faith in Jesus’s promise to His Body.

Now, interestingly, the Church was moved by God in the Apostolic Age to write all of the books to be used in the New Testament canon. This is pretty much universally accepted. Protestants and Catholics alike say that the authority of the Apostles was greater or at least equal to the Scriptures, for they themselves wrote it, were commissioned by Jesus Himself and were filled with the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room. And based on the history of the formation of the canon, the Church was moved by God to authoritatively deem what truly is the canon. (If you don’t believe that by now, is your faith now shaken?) But AD 397 is way beyond the Apostolic Age. It is generally agreed that not one apostle lived to see the 2nd century. So where does this maintained authority that was used to canonize the Scriptures come from? Even then, after the canon is formed, does the Church then lose it’s authority to become subordinate to the Scriptures? Is the Church’s authority greater, equal to, or inferior to the Bible? What does the Bible say on the matter? To mention just one solid verse, for there are many proof texts to be used for opposing viewpoints, look to the Apostle Paul in his first letter Timothy: “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth" (3:15).

But this is another topic to be discussed later.

The Greatest Battles of All-Time

2011-02-08T11:40:00.009-05:00

You can't resist the list. There is too much on the line for you to just gloss over this. Way too epic. I promise I'll get back to the Battle of Vienna afterwords.

What do I mean by greatest battles? First of all it is a battle, not a campaign. It is a single confrontation that is a defining moment in history. But honestly I don't always hold to that. The Battle of Britain was a sort of a campaign, but ya gotta include it, right? Now the defining moment could be many things: changing the course of history (cliche, I know, but you know what I mean), winning against unsurmountable odds, sparking a shift in cultural thought, brilliant leadership and strategies, HUGE AND EPIC, the end or beginning of an era, the stuff of legend, and so on. It does get a little tricky when you have an several important battles that are linked together such as Thermopylae, Platae and Salamis. The success of one is dependent on the other(s). I usually just pick one. The same goes for the American Revolution. I chose the Battle of Lexington and Concord over Yorktown. One started the war and the other finished it. You decide which is more important. But by all means, if you want to put them all in, it's your call.

Here's my list of the greatest battles of all-time (in alphabetical order):

Actium–end of the civil war with Antony and rise of the Roman Empire under Octavian Caesar Augustus
Adrianople–Emperor Valens and the Romans got served by the barbarian Goths which was the start of the final downfall of the Western Roman Empire
Agincourt–Henry V and his longbowmen decisively defeat the heavily favored French knights. Shakespeare wrote about it... St. Crispin's Day anyone?
Alesia–Julius Caesar defeats united Gallic forces and uses the momentum to turn on Rome
Austerlitz–In his greatest victory, Napoleon carves up the Austrian Empire and secures Central Europe for himself
Battle of Britain–the RAF and British tenacity hold off the German Luftwaffe and maintain control of Britain
Battle of the Bulge–Great German counter–offensive in WW2, but they ran out of gas... literally
Cannae–Hannibal completely annihilates Roman opposition in the 2nd Punic War with one of the most genius strategies ever
Carchemish–Nebuchadnezzar II defeats the Egyptians and Assyrians and takes over everything
Fall of Constantinople–the definitive end of the classical Roman era and rise of Turkish dominance
Sack of Constantinople–4th Crusade gets confused, sacks their Christian allies and forever severs the union between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Way. To. Go.
Gaugamela–Alexander, at his best, defeats Darius III with lightning speed, crippling the powerful Persian Achaemenid Empire and instituting a Hellenized culture
Gettysburg–deadliest battle in the western hemisphere and turning point in the American Civil War
Grunwald–combined Polish and Lithuanian forces defeat the Teutonic Knights in an all out epic medieval confrontation
Hastings–Normans lead last successful invasion of England in...when? 1066!!!
Invasion of Normandy–largest amphibious assault in history which resulted in a Communist-free Western Europe
Kadesh–Epic chariot battle between Rameses II and Egypt against the Hittites
Lepanto–large naval engagement at the time and ended a century of Turkish naval dominance in the Mediterranean
Lexington and Concord–the shot heard 'round the world. First engagement of American Revolution. "Don't tread on me!"
Marathon–Greeks defeat the Achaemenid Persians, who were the largest empire the world had known, and sent them packing. This was the first time the Greeks defeated the Persians and showed that they were beatable. Running was also invented...
Midway–U.S. Navy soundly defeats the Japanese Navy in a colossal sea and air battle that crippled the Imperial Japan beyond recovery
Pharsalus–Julius Caesar defeats Pompey the Great using hidden javelin throwers. This ultimately led to the republic falling into the hands of the "tyrant" Gaius Julius Caesar
Stalingrad–the largest and deadliest battle in history and the turning point in the Eastern Front of WW2
Somme–one of the largest engagements in WW1 and first to deploy the tank. A battle that did little strategically accept kill 1,500,000 people
Teutoburg Forest– through an act of betrayal, three Roman legions were ambushed and utterly destroyed. This was the last attempt at Roman control of German territory. "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Thermopylae–Leonidas and the Spartans defend the Peloponnese (and the West) from Persian invasion to the point of death
Tours–Charles Martel "the Hammer" stops the spread of Islam into the heart of feeble Europe and establishes Frankish dominance for several centuries
Trafalgar–Admiral Lord Nelson defeats the Franco–Spanish Navy during the Napoleonic Wars by sinking 22 of their 33 ships without a single British ship lost
Battle of Vienna– um, read m' blog!
Waterloo–a glorious end to Napoleon and the French Empire
Zama–Scipio Africanus outwits the mighty Hannibal in North Africa, securing the ultimate rise of the Roman Republic and fall of Carthage

My Top Ten list of Greatest Battles of All-Time:

Marathon (490 B.C.)
Zama (202 B.C.)
Stalingrad (1941-42)
Thermopylae (480 B.C.)
Fall of Constantinople (1453)
Vienna (1683)
Gaugamela (331 B.C.)
Waterloo (1815)
Tours (732)
Hastings (1066)

What is your top ten? What battles did I forget? Let the debate begin!

Copts

2011-02-02T11:04:00.015-05:00

In light of the recent events in Egypt, I wanted to talk about the ethnoreligious group in Egypt known as the Copts.

"If you come to a Coptic person and tell him that he’s an Arab, that’s offensive. We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians... When we hear the word "Copt", that doesn’t only mean "Christian", it means "Egyptian"."

–Bishop Thomas of Cusae and Meir, a Copt.

HISTORY

You may or may not know much about Egyptian history after the pharaohs. I will bring us up to speed.

For most of their ancient history, the people in Egypt were ethnic Egyptians and they did the Egyptian thing–pyramids, embalming, and senet. In 434 B.C., the Persians took it over for a wee-bit. A hundred years later along came Alexander, who the Egyptians viewed as a liberator, and following his early death, the Hellenistic (Greek civilization outside of Greece) Ptolemaic Kingdom reigned along the Nile. The capital moved from Memphis to newly established Alexandria. Hellenization thrived in Egypt. The Greeks and the Egyptians lived in relative harmony for a while, with the Greek "Pharaohs" taking on Egyptian customs and continued to tolerate the Egyptian religion. Egyptians could still to their thang. But the Greek Pharaohs started marrying their sisters or something and the subsequent rulers became more and more feeble.

Julius Caesar showed up and "Veni, vidi, vici.*" He set up a puppet state in Egypt in 47 B.C. and it was finally absorbed into the Roman Empire by Octavian in 30 B.C. The Romans were pretty tolerant folk, which is probably why they had such long-standing success, and they allowed the Egyptians to do whatever they wanted and worship whomever they wished as long as they paid their taxes and didn't start a fight. If they started a fight, well, then there would be hell to pay–something everybody understood except the Jews. Even though the world was run by the Romans, the East anyway was still Greek. Egypt was comfortable with the Greco-Egyptian culture, and in the first century A.D. the Egyptians moved from hieroglyphics to a modified version of the Greek alphabet.

With the advent of Christianity, Egyptian life was about to drastically change. The Church in Alexandria is thought to have been founded in 42 B.C. by Mark the Evangelist. By the beginning of the 3rd Century, Christianity was the majority religion along the Nile. For the first three centuries after Christ, Christianity was a minority religion throughout the Roman Empire with no political ties and, on occasion, subject to Roman and local persecution. Egyptians were willingly converting to Christianity and was therefore not an overthrow of Egyptian culture but an evolution of it.

Egyptian culture stayed Christian until the Muslim conquests in the 7th Century by the Arabs. The Arabs referred to Egyptians as "quft," or, in today's usage, Copts. After centuries of Islamic rule in Egypt, most Egyptians converted to Islam. The term Copt evolved to exclusively define Christian Egyptians. The Church in Egypt became known as the Coptic Church. Christians were tolerated mostly, as dhimmis, or in a way, second-class citizens, but after the Crusades, the Mamluk Sultanate imposed heavy persecutions on the Christians, burned Coptic monastaries and forced many to convert to Islam. Things eventually got better. In the 19th Century, the ruler Muhammad Ali liberalized much of Egyptian law and the Copts were treated more as equals and rose to high positions in the Egyptian government. Yet in the 1950s after the Coup d'état, Gamal Nasser came to power and established a Pan-Arabic (unity with the Greater-Arabic world and culture) and Arabic Nationalism within Egypt that resulted in many human rights violations against the Copts including terrorism such as the recent bombing of a Coptic Church in Alexandria. This has led to a greater Coptic diaspora.

CULTURE

Today when one refers to Copts, he refers to Egyptian Christians and predominately those that adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The church still uses the modified Greek alphabet known as the Coptic alphabet, during Church Liturgy speaks the Coptic language, which is the last remnant of the Ancient Egyptian language, and follows the Coptic calendar which starts on August 29th.

As a result of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451, the Church in Alexandria along with others, split with the majority of the Roman Christian Church. The schism resulted in the Oriental Orthodox Church (which included the Church in Alexandria), or Non-Chalcedonians, falling out of communion with what is now the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (which were unified at the time) also known as the Chalcedonians. They differed on the definition nature of Christ. The Chalcedonians stated that Christ had two natures in one person. He was both fully human and fully divine. The Non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) states that Jesus Christ's Divinity and Humanity are intertwined in one single nature (known as "physis") and are not separated in any way. This teaching of the Oriental Orthodox Church (of which the Coptics are a part) is known as Miaphysitism. To most of us now, if we even understand it, is not perceived as an issue worth splitting over. To the Christian in the 5th Century, it carried a lot more wait. The Oriental Orthodox Church, over fifteen centuries later, is still out of communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. A Protestant, Catholic, or Greek Orthodox adherent cannot partake in a Coptic Communion.

Although the only account for about 10-15% of the Egyptian population, the Copts think of themselves as the true Egyptians. They say are linked to the Ancient Egyptians not only by their language alphabet and ethnicity, but also by direct Apostolic Succession dating back to the 1st Century with St. Mark. They view Muslims as non-Egyptians or Arabs. They site Nasser's Pan-Arabism, which focuses on the Islamic Arab world and not Egypt, as a distinguishing factor between the Copts or "Egyptians" and the Muslims–"Arabs." Copts focus on an indigenous Egyptian culture and not an Arabic culture which has separate roots.

To quote Coptic Bishop Thomas of Cusae and Meir in more detail:

"What makes a person change the identity of his own nation and shift the focus of his identity from Egypt to become "the Arabs", even though ethnically he/she is the same person? The Copts have been always focused on Egypt; it’s our identity, it’s our nation, it’s our land, it’s our language, it’s our culture. But when some of the Egyptians converted to Islam, their focus changed away from looking to their own [language and culture]. They started to look to the Arabians, and Arabia became their main focus. So the focus here has changed and they would no longer be called "Copts". If you come to a Coptic person and tell him that he’s an Arab, that’s offensive. We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians. I am very happy to be an Egyptian and I would not accept being "Arab" because ethnically I am not. I speak Arabic. Politically now, I am part of a country that was Arabized and politically I belong to an Arabic country but that doesn’t make a person Arab. If a person believes he is an Arab, his main focus is the pan-Arab area, and he no longer belongs to the Egyptian nation. You are either in or out; either you belong or you don’t. And this is a big dilemma that is happening for the Copts who kept their Christianity, or rather their identity as Egyptians with their own culture, and who are trying to keep the language, the music, and the calendar of the Copts. That means that the culture of Ancient Egypt is still carried on. A process of Arabization has been ongoing in this country for many centuries, since the 7th century. At the same time Islamization as well is a dilemma that started and is still carrying a lot of the problems. [...] So when we hear the word "Copt", that doesn’t only mean "Christian", it means "Egyptian"."

Since the 1970s Copts have suffered about 120 major attacks which have resulted in about 4,000 deaths alone and millions in personal property. Mubarak's government has done little to nothing to quell the violence against Copts in Egypt. Most of the attacks are not committed by terrorist groups, but by the local population. But don't take my word for it. If you have an hour, watch Bishop Thomas address the Hudson Institute about the tension between Copts and Muslims in Egypt. An interesting perspective that we would could not see, being Westerners.

BUT...

The Christmas Eve attack on the Copts was the final straw. Copts have been dealing with attacks from militant Muslims with no support from the government and took to the streets in protest. Soon afterwords, Muslims joined in the protest to and stood united with the Christians as Egyptians attacking the government for not supporting and protecting its own. Some even stood as humans shields for the Christians during Mass. This is maybe one possible contributing factor to the national protests in Egypt. If there is a smooth transition in the government, this could be good news for the Copts.

It's amazing to see a group of people hold on to what they believe for centuries on end, in times of persecution, radical cultural change, from regime to regime and empire to empire. I think it's safe to say that they'll still be around centuries later.

Notes

*According to Julius Caesar's "Civil War", "Veni, vidi, vici" actually refers to Caesar's brief encounter and shellacking of Pharnaces II of Pontus in the city of Zela.

I Has a Portfolio

2011-01-28T17:29:00.002-05:00

dannymcnight.carbonmade.com

BAM!

I finally got an online portfolio. If you don't want any hassle then carbonmade.com is the way to go. You pay a small monthly fee, but it's super easy and they give you a decent amount of space.

Totally Awesome Person: Sgt. Yakov Pavlov

2011-01-19T10:45:00.014-05:00

Time for my first Totally Awesome Person Post. It is what is says it will be. Most of these people will be from the History vs. History post I did several months back. Other people will make it on the list as well, I got good suggestions for folks I had not thought of. So without further ado...

Today's Totally Awesome Person is Sgt. Yakov Pavlov. Yes, he's a Russian. Better than that he's a Soviet who was honored with being named a "Hero of the Soviet Union" by Joseph Stalin. He also served in the Communist party. You are probably thinking: "Wow this Danny McNight guy is really open-minded to have written his first Totally Awesome Person post about a member of the Soviet Union. That takes a lot of courage." And to that I would say: "Heck yeah."

But honestly, it doesn't matter where you're from if you accomplished what Pavlov did in the the fall of 1942. People should drink to his memory not for his ideology, but his sheer tenacity and courage in the face of overwhelming challenges. His heroic feats transcend every culture. Yakov is the Russian Beowulf in a sense, and he is untainted, for he has no crappy movie made about him. Bless him.

Speaking of which...

Ok, let's set this up.

In August 1939, the Nazis made a secret pact with the Soviet Union which they agreed to carving up Eastern Europe into German and Russian spheres of influence. One week later on September 1, the Germans invaded Poland "thus beginning World War II." I bet your history teacher didn't tell you that the Soviets invade Poland from the east on September 17. On October 6, the Nazis and Soviets met in the middle of Poland and shook hands, dividing and conquering the entire nation in a little over a month. (Poland never surrendered, unlike the French.)

So the Germans were in bed with the Russians it seemed. In 1940, Hitler takes over France in like six weeks, with Paris falling in less than five weeks. Great job. Gosh darn it they gave it the old college try though. They were down three touchdowns at the end of the first quarter and forfeited the game to the Stormtroopers. They needed Michael Vick or someone on their team.

Oh Paris, mon amour!! Nous pleurons parce que nous avons quitté so damn rapide. Allons nous cacher nos visages dans la honte!

Then they bombed London, but Britain is Britain, and they held out of course.

Sooooo, Hitler gets bored and broke his pact with his buddy and commences Operation Barbarossa all up in Stalin's grill. The Germans invaded the Motherland with a fury on June 22, 1941 and thus began the largest and deadliest military operation in history. The Germans advanced all they way to Moscow by mid-Oktoberfest, but the Russians ultimately pushed them back from the city in January of '42. Hitler then turned his attention south to Stalingrad. Stalingrad controlled the Volga which emptied into the Caspian Sea and link the Soviet north with the south. If he controlled Stalingrad, he would in effect cut off the Soviet's access to the south. The city was also the gateway to the oil-rich Caucasus and Baku regions. Hitler knew it was crucial: "If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must end this war." They had a lot of tanks and planes to fuel.

Through the use of the superior German Panzer tanks, Luftwaffe, infantry and artillery, and weakened/inexperienced Soviet forces, the Germans made it all the way to Stalingrad in no time. The Luftwaffe bombed the city to utter ruin and destroyed the hopes of Soviet ships resupplying the city from the Volga River. The Soviets were forced to change tactics in order to provide enough time for reinforcements. Instead of fighting out in the open, the Soviets converted every house, office building, factory, apartment, school building and pile of rubble into a fortified position. Intense and chaotic urban warfare ensued. There were no battle lines, no tactical strategies, and zero mobility. Every last inch of the city, including the sewer system, was fought and paid for with many lives.

Enter Yakov Pavlov.

Sgt. Yakov Pavlov was a non-commissioned officer and commander of a platoon only because all the other superior officers were incapacitated. In mid-September of 1942, he was ordered to seize and maintain control of a four-story apartment complex that overlooked a city square. He gained control of the building, albeit taking costly casualties–only and handful of men surviving, and set about to turn this bombed-out apartment into a mighty fortress. Stalin had issued an order which told soldiers "not one step back." Pavlov was to either defend this building until relieved or die trying. Pavlov intended on the former.

The building was strategically placed at one end of the square and give the defenders a clear line of sight to the north, south, and west. If the German army were to occupy the square, they had to secure the apartment building where Pavlov was stationed. If you were to look at the apartment building on a map you would notice that it is the last major building before the Volga River. It was the end of the line for the defenders of Stalingrad. Take "one step back" and your in the damn river. Hold the line and save the city. Lose it, and Hitler wins.

Oh, its on.

Fortunately Pavlov was reinforced with some additional units, bringing his motley crew to about two-dozen fighting men...

"Hurray! What a relief!! Wait what? Only two-dozen? What the... Is this some kind of joke? How in the name of Lenin's Ghost are we to be able to defend this pile of rubble with 24 men? ... Huh? Oh, hold out for two months he says! Suuuure, no problem. Do you want us to do it with no sleep on top of it? What more coul–– What? ... You're saying we won't get much sleep either? I... You better just walk away right now. Just walk away before I rip your head off."

They were supplied with mortar, anti-tank rifles and machine guns. They placed barbed wire and minefields at the approaches to the building and machine-guns and anti-tank rifles in the windows facing the square. They dug a tunnel to the Soviet positions along the Volga through which they could be resupplied with artillery and food.

On September 23, the German offensive to seize control of Pavlov's House, as it was now called, began in earnest. Wave after wave of German soldiers rushed Pavlov's House only to be gunned down. Pavlov himself figured out that if he stationed the anti-tank rifles on top of the building they they could fire down at the approaching tanks that were within 25 meters and hit their thin turret-armor from the top and destroy the tanks. The German tanks could not aim their turrets high enough to return fire. Pavlov alone has been reported to have gunned down 12 Panzer tanks. After every lull in the fighting, Pavlov's men would have to sneak out of the building and kick over the German bodies that were piling up in the square to prevent the next German assault from seeking cover behind their dead comrades.

The Germans attacked the building several times daily for weeks on end. Pavlov's men ripped the wool insulation off of pipes to sleep on, but the Germans would fire on the building constantly, depriving the defenders from much needed sleep. The supply line would be cut for days at a time, resulting in low ammunition and starvation. Yet no matter under what conditions Pavlov's platoon were enduring, the German military could not seize control of the building from this rag-tag group of sleep-deprived, starving, injured, exhausted Soviets. Pavlov's House was so impenetrable, it was being marked as a fortress on German maps.

Pavlov's House held out from September 23 to November 25 when the Soviet Red Army counter-offensive relieved them. For two months two-dozen men bought the Soviet army enough time to coordinate their attack on the German army that ultimately led to wining the Battle of Stalingrad and turning the tide of the war in the Soviets favor. Notice again that two-dozen men held off the German army for two months, while all of France fell within 6 weeks. Although anything looks good compared to French resolve, this is a staggering accomplishment. Through Yakov Pavlov's grit and courage, not only did he and his men change the direction of the war in the east and ultimately bring about the destruction of the Nazi regime, but they showed that the world's greatest feats and heroics are sometimes achieved by common-place men who would have never been known otherwise. Pavlov's House is a reminder to all that the human spirit and will is the strongest ally an army can have.

Crescent ≠ Islam

2011-01-18T10:51:00.008-05:00

When most of us look at a crescent on a flag, we generally think of one thing: is it waxing or waning? .... ok, not that. We generally think of something other than that: Islam. A great many nations use the crescent in their national flag. Algeria, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey are just a handful.

This is flag for the Republic of Turkey. Although a republic now, Turkey is still very heavily Islamic, with over 97% of its population considering itself Islamic. The same could be said of other countries using the crescent–Algeria (99% Muslim), Azerbaijan (99%), Tunisia (99%), Pakistan (97%), and so on.

So the Christians have the cross and the Muslims have the crescent, right?

Not exactly.

The history of the crescent predates Islam and even Christianity. The city of Byzantium, which later became Constantinople and then Istanbul, adopted the crescent flag before the birth of Christ. No one knows for sure why the flag was used. Some speculate that it was adopted after the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of the lunar month. Others say it is in honor of the Greek goddess Diana. Whatever it is though, Constantinople used the crescent throughout its entire history, even after it became the most important Christian city in the world.

Islamic states however, did not have a unified symbol. Sometimes a simple red or green flag indicated a particular armies loyalty to an certain Islamic crown. In 1453, when Mehmed II defeated the Byzantine Empire and conquered Constantinople the Ottoman Turks adopted the crescent as there flag and symbol. Legend says that Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire saw the crescent as a good omen. So they kept it around. For the next 450 years, the Ottoman Empire dominated the Muslim world and spread the crescent from the Western Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea and beyond. After centuries of fighting between the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the Christian West, it is easy to see why the crescent is associated with Islam. In reality, it had little to do with Islam and everything to do with the Ottoman Empire.

In 1918, when the winners of World War I (Britain, France, and the USSR) carved up the Ottoman Empire (they sided with the losers), many of these now ex-Ottoman states continued to used the crescent as there national symbol. But many Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia–an Islamic absolute monarchy and not a secular republic, do not.

So there you have it.

The Crescent ≠ Islam

Battle of Vienna: Laying Siege

2011-01-05T17:08:00.022-05:00

This is my second of three/four installments on the Battle of Vienna. I haven't decided how many yet. There were some questions as to what a Grand Vizier actually is. I am sorry that Disney's Aladdin wasn't that helpful. The Grand Vizier was the top minister of the Sultan and could only be axed by the Sultan himself. He had absolute power of attorney and could call together all the other ministers in the land to deal with matters of state. So... the sultan is numero-uno, and the Grand Vizier is his right-hand man.

Sieging the City

The Ottoman Turks were not fighting alone. The Khanate of Crimea, Moldovia, Transylvania and Wallachia aided the Ottomans, bringing the total force to 150,000 troops and 300 canons. Leopold and 80,000 civilians high-tailed it out of city as the Ottomans advanced closer to Vienna. The Emperor entrusted 11,000 soldiers, about 5,000 volunteers and 300+ cannons to Ernst Rüdiger von Starhemberg. The task of defending the city would be a difficult one. Outnumbered 9 to 1, the only chance of victory for Starhemberg was holding out until a Christian relief force arrived, but the odds of fending of the empire were great indeed.

The Ottomans arrived on July 14th, surrounded the city and demanded surrender. Upon hearing that Perchtoldsdorf, a town outside of Vienna, had surrendered and then a large portion of it's populace was slaughtered, Starhemberg refused to surrender Vienna to Grand Vizier Mufasta. He was banking on the imminent arrival of the reinforcements and, well, there was apparently no point in surrendering anyway. Starhemberg and Mufasta entrenched their forces and the second siege of Vienna ensued.

Fortifications

Time to pause our regularly scheduled program and talk about Vienna's fortifications. With the introduction of the cannon in the Late Medieval period, the impregnable fortresses of the day became obsolete. No longer did seeking refuge behind castle walls guarantee victory. Medieval fortresses consisted of walls at 90 degree angles. A cannon ball shot directly at a castle wall that is perpendicular to the ground would have a devastating impact on the defenses. There would be many blind spots for the defenders as well. If an attacking enemy made it all the way to the foot of the castle wall, he was covered from enemy fire coming from the castle due to the extremity of the firing angle. To get around this, engineers started constructing walls at sloping angles to absorbed the onslaught of cannon fire which would now impact the walls with only indirect hits. It also kept the attackers in plain sight even when they were at the foot of the walls.

There were other innovations at work with Vienna's fortifications. In the 15th century in Italy, the star fort emerged. It was such an effective design that major cities all over Europe–including Vienna–started adopting this style. The star fort takes advantage of maximum firing and covering potential for the defenders. It consisted of diamond-shaped bastions that jut out from the main wall and give the defenders up to a 280˚ line of sight. With these bastions laid out around the entire fortress, no attacker is safe from enemy fire. The star fort also utilized heavily sloped fortifications called ravelins that were detached from the main fortress and specialized in firing down on the attackers. Since the attackers are running uphill at and angle, defenders at the edge of the ravelin have to only sweep their guns from left to right.

Back to the Story

Vienna's defenses were state-of-the-art and included 11 bastions, ravelins, and a moat. They were well prepared for any attack to get over the walls. Starhemberg had all the trees and villages surrounding Vienna razed to the ground so they would have a clear line of sight on the approaching Turks.

The Ottomans decided to dig. The Grand Vizier sent his sappers to start digging trenches towards the city walls to provide cover. Musfasta, seeing that his cannons would be of little use against the massive walls, decided to use his gunpowder in a different way–explosives. The plan was to dig tunnels underneath the walls in an attempt to blow them up. All through the summer the sappers worked underground inching closer and closer to Vienna's defenses.

Mufasta was taking his time, he wanted Vienna unspoiled–ripe for looting. He could not, in his mind, risk razing Vienna to the ground. Vienna was a rich and wealthy city, and it would all belong to him... and the Ottoman Empire, of course. His lack of urgency in conquering Vienna did give Jan III Sobieski a chance to honor his pact with Leopold by allowing him more time to raise an army in Poland-Lithuania and lead it to Austria.

But Poland still felt like a long way off. The Ottomans had the city completely surrounded–cutting off the food and water supply. The defenders were exhausted. It was difficult to keep watch all around the city with such large fortifications with so few men. The situation became so dire that Starhemberg ordered that any man caught sleeping at his post would face the firing squad. To make matters worse, they had not heard from Charles V, Duke of Loraine, who was leading the Imperial forces, nor from the King Poland. With the city surrounded it would be very difficult to get word to Charles as it was.

They needed a hero.

Someone that could remove himself from the equation.

To be continued...

Battle of Vienna: In 3D

2011-01-05T13:35:00.002-05:00

I like this story so much I'm creating an animation of several key moments in the battle. This is a blocked out screenshot of the Turks laying siege on Vienna from a hill top. Still pretty rough, but you get the idea. Maybe I'll post a clip as things come along.

Battle of Vienna: Prelude

2011-01-04T19:05:00.050-05:00

Ottomans, Poles, Austrians, Germans, Catholics, Muslims, sieges, cavalry charges, heroics, awesome quotes, coffeehouses, secret messengers, strangulation and subterranean battles ALL IN ONE STORY.

I'm just saying.

After eight months of researching I finally have enough material to write a new post. Crazy, you think? or perhaps lazy... No. Dedication. Dedication towards my passion of history makes me thorough. I have travelled far and wide, endured hardships that are unimaginable, and danced with death itself all to bring to you an unspoiled and rich story that will send you on an emotional roller coaster and heal your troubled soul. I ask you to stand with me this day and count yourself among the blest to be educated once again at the feet of my blog. Just stare at the shiny colored box for a few minutes and come away a better person.

By the way, it's so good it'll be a trilogy.

In 1453 the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople and finally brought an end to the Roman Empire. Wuh huh? Yes, the Romans. Christian Romans too. But they were Orthodox, unfortunately for them, not Catholic or those stubborn followers of Luther and Calvin, so nobody in Western Europe really cared at that point.

Taking Constantinople was more of a blow logistically for Western Europe than sentimentally. Control of Constantinople means control of the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean militarily and commercially. Within a hundred years the Ottomans the largest empire in the world, the strongest navy, a sizable treasury and were continuing to add to it all year by year. Europe, feeling threatened, tried to balance out the Ottoman threat that the Byzantine Empire was successfully keeping at bay for centuries, no thanks to the west.

"Oh. Maybe we should've helped the Byzantines. I mean, they are Orthodox... that could possibly have been important–maybe. or something... a little at least...Crap this is going to bite us in the arse isn't it? I sense foreshadowing..."

The Ottomans steadily grew, taking Serbia, Bulgaria, the Holy Land, Egypt, Mecca, Medina, Rhodes, Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, Crimea, Mesopotamia, Hungary, all the way down to Ethiopia, up to the Caspian Sea, and were knocking on the doors of Vienna in 1529. The Ottomans laid siege in late September. It rained and snowed. Everybody complained and so they retreated–losing many soldiers in the process.

Fast forward to 1682. A lot of stuff went down in between: white folk Livin' in America, the KJV, Michelangelo paints stuff, Spanish take over Latin America, 30 Years' War, the Tudors, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, the Portuguese are trading with the Japanese, the Ottomans are still on top and Kara Mustafa Pasha became Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire.

Grand Vizier you ask? Oh you know...

This guy is the villain of our story and pretty much universally recognized as such. Greedy too. His Sultan, Mehmed IV is itching for a chance to get control of Central Europe through Vienna. In the winter of 1682, the Turks mobilized for a full scale attack. In August they declared war on the Holy Roman Empire. They spent years preparing for this: freeing up the treasury, training soldiers, building highways, etc.

They should have waited until the spring of 1683 to declare war. They could not risk getting to Vienna as fall was approaching. Rain, snow, complaining... so they just declared war and waited.

The Europeans were not waisting any time. In March of 1683 the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I, and King Jan III Sobieski (yes that's him) of the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania made pact stating if Poland were attacked in Kraców, Leopold would aid Sobieski, and likewise if Vienna were sieged, Poland would support the Holy Roman Empire. That same day, Mehmed IV sent another declaration, part of which states: "Primarily we order You to await Us in Your residence city of Vienna so that We can decapitate You... (...) We will exterminate You and all Your followers... (...) Children and grown-ups will be exposed to the most atrocious tortures before put to an end in the most ignominious way imaginable..." ...huh...

On April 1, 1683, Kara Mustafa and his force of 110,000 left Thrace for Vienna.

I'll cover that in the next post.

Historical Income Tax Rates

2010-05-04T11:08:00.000-04:00

Before you say "BORING!!!!!", all you have to do is look at a picture. If you want a more time-consuming analysis, check out the wikipedia article. But anyway I found it rather interesting that the current top-tier tax rates are much, much lower than historical highs dating back to the 1910s. Now the top-tier individual back then was making $10,000,000 and up (in 2007 dollars) as opposed to the $400,000 or so and up of today so it is apples and oranges...

But come on, a 94% income tax rate!?! Are we reverting back to feudalism or something?

Ok, I've said enough. Just look at the picture.

Ancestry.com

2010-04-28T15:56:00.000-04:00

A couple months ago I created an account with Ancestry.com.

IT IS AWESOME.

I was able to trace direct lineage back to the William Brewster on the Mayflower. I was funny to think that I have the ultimate fundamentalist in my family. If you grew up in a fundamental church, you've heard of separation and the unsupported notion of secondary separation. William Brewster beats them all. It's not tertiary separation or 4th, 5th, 6th, etc... No, they left the entire continent to separate from the unbelievers. That's like infinity separation. Sorry Jack Hyles, he's got you beat.

But anyway Mayflower relatives are cool, but I could not find much else that was really awesome, because that's all I care about in doing this. Who am I related to who is awesome? I could trace back to Bavaria before the Thirty Years War and England during the Tudors, but that's just a cool time not really cool relatives. I cancelled my subscription and left ancestry.com alone for six months or so.

I haven't thought about it much, but ancestry.com does send me emails from time to time saying: "Hey, check us out! We've got new records for you..." So I decided to spend the $20 for one month and check out all the new stuff. To make a long story short, I was able to trace back my English heritage back to Grace Gascoigne, a French sounding name during the middle of Henry VIII reign. This goes back a dozen generations or so then gets real Norman really quick. I'm directly related to Richard I, Duke of Normandy, whose great-grandson was William the Conqueor, Duke of Normandy and King of England. Battle of Hastings? 1066?

BOOYAH.

You would think that would be cool enough, but William the Conqueror is not my great, great great...whatever... grandpa. He's in the family but not as close as I want, not for bragging rights anyway. So not wanting to stop, I keep going back from Richard I of Normandy in hopes of uncovering more awesomeness.

And I found it.

Here's the rest of the list traced from Richard I, Duke of Normandy:

1. William I, Duke of Normandy (Father)

2. Papia de Valois (Grandmother)

3. Pepin de Senlis & de Valois (Great-Grandfather)

4. Pepin, Count Vermandois Quentin (Great-Great-Grandfather)

5. Bernard, King of Italy (Great 3x-Grandfather)

6. Pippin, King of Italy (Great 4x-Grandfather)

7. Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans. (Great 5x-Grandfather)

8. Pippin the Short, King of the Franks (Great 6x-Grandfather)

9. Charles Martel the Hammer (Great 7x-Grandfather) Battle of Tours

So in all I am directly related to the most powerful Medieval-European King, the guys who led the last successful invasion of England, the winner of the battle of Tours which stopped the spread of Islam into infant Europe, and the Carolingian dynasty where Knights may have first developed, at least made popular, and where feudalism was spread.

Oh yeah and the fundiest guy ever.

If you look at my last post I'm an related to two of the guys on the list. I just found this today.

And then I read this article, and realized that everybody of European decent is probably related to Charlemagne.

My how we're all connected.

History vs. History

2010-04-15T12:06:00.000-04:00

I for one get a major kick out of creating and reading lists. Greatest bands of all-time, greatest athletes, awesomest people evah, biggest a-holes of all-time. Anything with the words "all-time" immediately has my undivided attention. The fun and intrigue is never ending. My brother and I would love to create a fighting video game in the style of street fighter compiled with the most badass dudes in history. Each of the characters would have a special move or two that plays to the strength of that historical character. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt would have strong health and, of course, would carry a big stick, or call upon the Rough Riders to win the day. Now to create a game like this, one has to compile the list. These have to be historical characters, so Major Alan "Dutch" Schaefer from Predator won't be present but Arnold as himself is more than welcome. We toyed with the idea of combining certain characters, such as Hannibal–Scipio Africanus or Patton–Rommel, but I think that's unfair. Basically I think the best way to sum up this list is "Who do you want to be in a foxhole with?"

Here is the list Davey and I have come up with so far (in order of badassness):

1. Gaius Julius Caesar

2. Genghis Khan
3. Alexander the Great

4. Napoleon Bonaparte

5. Hannibal Barca

6. Winston Churchill

7. Frederick the Great

8. Theodore Roosevelt
9. Scipio Africanus

10. Saladin

11. Leonidas

12. Attila the Hun

13. Cyrus the Great

14. Nebuchadnezzar

15. El Cid

16. Moses

17. Charlemagne

18. King David

19. Charles Martel "the Hammer"

20. George Patton
21. Sgt. Yakov Pavlov "Pavlov's House"

22. Flavius Belisarius

23. William of Normandy

24. Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 Crew
25. Edward I of England

26. Lt. Audie Murphy

27. Sparticus

28. Pyrrhus of Epirus

29. Sgt. Alvin York

30. Ramesses II

31. Henry V of England

32. Sun Tzu

33. Erwin Rommel

34. Frederick Barbarossa

35. Cnut the Great

36. Charles Lindbergh

37. Arnold Schwarzenegger

38. Cardinal Richelieu

39. Miyamoto Musashi

40. Sir Francis Drake

41. Lord Horatio Nelson

42. Richard I of England

43. Wyatt Erp

44. Manfred von Richthofen "Red Baron"
45. Chuck Yeager
46. Al Capone

47. Alfred the Great

48. Ferdinand Magellan

49. Henry VIII

50. Georgy Zhukov

input would be appreciated

Khufu's Pyramid

2010-04-12T14:57:00.000-04:00

Every morning I generally sit at my computer for an hour or so and look to read things. I try to find something that is new to me that is interesting instead of perusing some almost-stranger's photos of his or her trip to Folly's Beach. Much to my chagrin, the latter creeps up more than I care to remember. This past weekend I stumbled across some articles about the Pyramids of Giza–Khufu's Pyramid in particular.

Fascinating stuff.

There is something super mysterious about this structure from antiquity. It's mondo old and big. It's survived over 4500 years of wars, famine, natural disasters, and looting. It's well preserved–the only intact Wonder of the Ancient World, and in my opinion, the most recognizable building on earth. The most intriguing of all, it tells us a great deal about the intelligence and craftsmanship of its makers, the Egyptians.

Ok, we all know about the Egyptians to some extent and that they all wear eyeliner and don snakes for hats. Hey, I ain't judging, we have Ed Hardy... I won't get into a high school history lesson.

The raw facts about this massive chunk of rock in the desert are astonishing. It was the tallest building in the world for 3800 years, until surpassed by the Lincoln Cathedral in England. It was completed around 2550 B.C. To put this in perspective, it's as old to Alexander the Great as he is to us. It was 1,100 years old when Moses left Egypt with the Hebrews. It was 500-600 years old when God made his Covenant with Abraham. The 13.1 acres it covers is made with over 2.3 million limestone blocks that collectively weigh around 5.9 million tons. In the course of 20 years it took to construct Khufu's pyramid, one block after the other had to have been set in place ever two and half minutes. The limestone blocks are so perfectly crafted, it has been said that you cannot slide a human hair in between them. Consider this: the Great Pyramid was built in the bronze age. Dr. Craig Smith of a pyramid construction management study notes that "The logistics of construction at the Giza site are staggering when you think that the ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, no wheels, and no iron tools. Yet, the dimensions of the pyramid are extremely accurate and the site was leveled within a fraction of an inch over the entire 13.1-acre base. This is comparable to the accuracy possible with modern construction methods and laser leveling. That's astounding. With their `rudimentary tools,' the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were about as accurate as we are today with 20th century technology."

The greatest mystery of all–nobody knows how the Egyptians did it. How do you get 2.5 ton blocks up 480 feet without pulleys or wheels? A ramp would be the most practical method, as agreed by most Egyptologists, but it will only get you so far. The top 4% of the pyramid is equal to 1/3 of the height. It gets too high too fast at the end. A ramp would have had to have been a mile long, and the total volume greater than that of the pyramid. No ramp of that magnitude exists. Levers are commonly thought to have supplemented the use of ramps, but no trace of levers big enough to handle 2.5 ton bricks has ever been found–let alone some of the 70 ton bricks recorded at the pyramid! Jean-Pierre Houdin came up with a theory several years ago that if not darn close, is quite fascinating. He suggests that a a standard straight ramp was used for the first 1/3 (in height) of the pyramid. Then an internal ramp that spirals up the pyramid just inside the exterior wall transports the blocks the rest of the way up. The blocks from the straight ramp would be used to complete the rest. The interior ramps, according to Houdin, would reach an open space at each of the corners of the pyramid (see photo) to allow a crane of sorts to rotate the blocks 90 degrees to continue up the next interior ramp. There maybe some holes to this theory, but there are holes in every one since Herodotus first tried to figure it out.

In my subconscious, I tend to think, even though I know better, that people living in this current day in age are the smartest in history. We have electricity, automobiles, nuclear warheads, and iPads. We've sent men to the moon, and build skyscrapers 5 times as high as the tallest building in the Medieval period. Our medical practices far out match even those of a 150 years ago. We have AC in the Deep South–aaaaaaahhh!!! Obviously our technological advancement is superior to the Egyptians. The keyword though is advancement, or progress. All our progress stems from a predecessor. But what civilization preceded the Egyptians? John Anthony West (another Egypt expert) writes: "How does a complex civilization spring full blown into being? Look at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of 'development'. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right there from the start." The Egyptians were extremely advanced and intelligent–not just for their time, but for all time.

People have always been people.