耶稣失落的岁月
耶稣失落的岁月自从哲学家弗里德里希·尼采（Friedrich Nietzsche）宣布“上帝死了”以来，质疑耶稣的历史真实性就成为一种时尚。在上个世纪，许多书籍都谈到了这个问题。其中之一，约瑟夫·阿特威尔（Joseph Atwill）的《凯撒的弥赛亚》（Caesar's Messiah，2011年）具有代表性，他认为弗拉维王朝发明了基督教，以创造一群愿意“转过脸来”并被动接受罗马统治的温顺臣民。弗拉维亚人（维斯帕先、提图斯和图密善）在公元 69-96 年间主导了罗马的政治格局，这一时期与四福音书的组成重叠。我读过阿特威尔的书，但不会再说了。我非常尊重我的读者，不会浪费时间去掏空阿特威尔。这将是毫无意义的做法。读者应该得到更好的。即使在十九世纪对耶稣的怀疑日益流行时，新的证据也出现了，支持历史上的耶稣。1880 年代，俄罗斯探险家尼古拉斯·诺托维奇 （Nicolas Notovitch） 在中亚进行了一次广泛的旅行，并在返回欧洲后公开发表了震撼基督教世界的耸人听闻的主张。诺托维奇说，他参观了克什米尔北部的一座佛教寺院，在那里他看到了关于耶稣的古代手稿，耶稣被称为“伊萨”。顺便说一句，这恰好是古兰经中耶稣的名字。假设诺托维奇说的是实话，这个新证据有力地支持了基督教的历史基础。但他在水平上吗？诺托维奇于1858年出生于克里米亚，父母是犹太人。然而，在他年轻的时候，在对宗教进行了广泛的研究后，他皈依了东正教。从亚洲回来后，他试图让梵蒂冈官员对他写的一本关于他旅行的书的初稿感兴趣，其中包括对所谓的佛教手稿的翻译。然而，在罗马，一位被诺托维奇描述为“与教宗非常亲近”的红衣主教并不热情，他回答说：“印刷这个有什么好处？没有人会非常重视它，你会制造许多敌人。红衣主教提出要报销他的时间和麻烦;但诺托维奇拒绝了。在巴黎，他还与红衣主教罗泰利（Rotelli）讨论了一本书的计划，罗泰利也试图劝阻他。虽然我从罗马教会那里得知这种抵抗并不感到惊讶，但我仍然感到失望。鉴于四福音书对所谓的“迷失岁月”完全没有提及，即耶稣在十三岁到三十岁之间在巴勒斯坦开始公开传道的大约17年，人们可能希望有一种更开放的态度。几个世纪以来，逝去的岁月一直是历史的空白和问号。当然，这个问题是一个谜，值得认真调查。碰巧的是，诺托维奇是一个非常执着的人，他的书《圣伊萨的生平》最终出版了，首先是法语版，然后是英文版，书名是《基督的未知生平》。它立即取得了成功。1894 年，这本书在法国发行了八个版本。美国也出现了三种不同的英文译本，第二年又在英国出现了另一种译本。随后还翻译了德文、瑞典文、意大利文和西班牙文。在他的一生中，诺托维奇出版了 11 本书，但人们只记得这本关于逝去岁月的书。说这本书是有争议的，是轻描淡写的。尽管一些评论家对它表示欢迎，同时质疑佛教关于基督的来源的可靠性，但其他人则公开表示敌意。1894 年 5 月，著名的一神论牧师爱德华·埃弗雷特·黑尔 （Edward Everett Hale） 在《北美评论》上撰文，不仅怀疑所谓的佛教原始文献的存在，甚至怀疑赫米斯寺的存在。黑尔指责诺托维奇混淆了整件事。（The Unknown Life of Christ， North American Review， Vol 158， 1894， 第595-601页）
他也不孤单。同年，著名的德国东方学家和牛津大学教授马克斯·穆勒（Max Muller）在广为人知的英语月刊《十九世纪》（The Nineteenth Century）上发表了一篇尖锐的评论。穆勒作为学者的声誉相当高，因为他出版了《梨俱吠陀》的第一个译本。穆勒在评论中指责诺托维奇欺诈。穆勒说，他怀疑提交人是否真的去过赫米斯。但即使他有，那里的喇嘛也可能欺骗了他。穆勒还引用了摩拉维亚传教士和英国军官的话，他们访问了拉达克首府列城，在那里进行了调查，但没有发现诺托维奇存在的证据。（马克斯·穆勒，《基督在印度的所谓旅居》，《十九世纪》，第36卷，1894年10月，第515-522页。诺托维奇为自己辩护，极力否认自己伪造了所谓的佛教手稿，声称“我的想象力没有那么丰富。他鼓励其他人访问拉达克，亲自验证这一发现，同时推荐他在旅行中学会的那种“东方外交”，换句话说，这是一种间接的方法来建立信任并减轻当地人对西方动机的担忧。他解释了为什么直接调查可能会失败：克什米尔北部和西藏的居民很久以前就知道要对西方人保持警惕。几个世纪以来，欧洲人一直在掠夺该地区的宝藏。任何西方人问起佛教手稿，肯定会引起怀疑，而且很可能会被推迟。诺托维奇还自愿提供了可以证实他在拉达克存在的人的姓名，其中包括一名在列城治疗他的欧洲医生。最后，他建议批评者不要攻击他，而应该把重点放在佛教手稿上，并确定他是否忠实地抄录了这些手稿。（资料来源见Elizabeth Claire Prophet， The Lost Years of Jesus， 1984， Summit University Press， chapter one）1896年，印度阿格拉政府学院（Government College）前英语和历史教授詹姆斯·阿奇博尔德·道格拉斯（James Archibald Douglas）在发表穆勒评论的同一期刊上发表了一篇文章。看来道格拉斯听从了诺托维奇的建议。他长途跋涉来到赫米斯寺院，在那里他会见了首席喇嘛，并向他提出了十个问题。道格拉斯带来了一名翻译，他也为他作证。根据道格拉斯的说法，喇嘛说他担任寺院住持已有十五年，并断然否认任何俄罗斯人最近访问过赫米斯。然而，当看到诺托维奇的照片时，喇嘛显然认出了他，并承认他可能将诺托维奇误认为是“英国萨希布”。在此基础上，道格拉斯承认诺托维奇可能确实参观过修道院，甚至可能见过修道院院长。经过仔细询问，道格拉斯确定列城医院的所谓医生确实治疗了一位名叫诺托维奇的俄罗斯人。以这种方式，诺托维奇的部分叙述得到了证实。尽管如此，道格拉斯在他的审查中声称，他获得了首席喇嘛于 1895 年 6 月 3 日签署的宣誓书，坚决否认存在所谓的关于伊萨的手稿。在回答第五个问题时，喇嘛说他已经当喇嘛四十二年了，对所有的佛教书籍和手稿都非常熟悉，但从未听说过提到“伊萨”这个名字的人。道格拉斯的审查包括宣誓书的文本以及他的翻译和证人、拉达克前邮政局长沙姆韦尔·乔尔丹（Shahmwell Joldan）的简短认可。道格拉斯还附上了马克斯·穆勒（Max Muller）的后记，他大声疾呼宣誓书“不仅是对诺托维奇的反驳，而且是毁灭”。（J. Douglas Archibald， The Chief Lama of Hemis on the Called “Unknown Life of Christ”， The Nineteenth Century， Vol. 39， April 1896， pp. 667-678.道格拉斯的评论严重损害了诺托维奇的声誉。图书销售受到影响;这就是多年来的事情。然而，争议远未结束。下一章将涉及斯瓦米·阿比达南达（Swami Abhedananda），他是印度圣人罗摩克里希纳（Ramakrishna）的主要弟子之一，可能是19世纪（地球上）最重要的精神人物。他的生平被彻底记录下来，事实令人震惊。阿毗达南达曾经这样描述他的老师：他的一个门徒来找他说：“先生，人们认为你疯了，或者你有喝酒的习惯。他回答说：“人们说的是真的。我有喝爱之酒的习惯。[但是]我不喝任何世俗的饮料......在世界的疯人院里，谁不疯呢？有的为妻子而疯狂，有的为丈夫而疯狂，有的为名声、名声或地位而疯狂;让我看看这个世界上一个对任何事情都不生气的人。我不为这个世界上的任何事情而生气，而是为永恒和永恒的上帝而生气。“（《阿毗达南达全集》卷）I，1967年，第497页。但回到阿比达南达。1866年出生于加尔各答，父亲是英语教授，从小就精通多种语言，是一位早熟的东西方文学学者。1884年，18岁的他成为罗摩克里希纳的弟子。随后，他花了数年时间在印度北部的纵横交错中游荡，赤脚，没有钱，参观圣地，寻找上帝实现的圣徒的陪伴，忍受贫困并练习出离心。在此期间，斯瓦米人曾在恒河源头附近的喜马拉雅山的一个洞穴中安家;三个月过去了。显然，他不是普通人。维基百科将阿比达南达描述为“一位有力的演说家、多产的作家、瑜伽士和具有虔诚热情的知识分子”。1896年，阿比达南达一到伦敦，就得知他的兄弟上司斯瓦米·维韦卡南达（Swami Vivekananda）安排他向英国听众发表关于吠檀多（Vedanta）的演讲，吠檀多是基于吠陀经的印度哲学。阿比达南达很震惊，因为他没有作为公众演说家的经验。在他的一生中，他从未向听众发表过演讲，甚至在印度也没有。然而，根据各种说法，那天晚上，阿赫达南达成功了，并向一群人发表了精彩的演讲。显然，这是一次考验。维韦卡南达很高兴，不久之后，他离开英国前往印度，相信他将把罗摩克里希纳在西方的精神使命交给有能力的人。阿赫达南达很快就在集会和大学面前担任演讲者，首先是在欧洲，然后是在美国。在这个过程中，他结识了许多杰出的人物，其中就包括值得信赖的马克斯·穆勒。两人显然在伦敦相遇，成为朋友，并一直通信到穆勒去世。两人都是学者，对罗摩克里希纳有着共同的兴趣。穆勒可能很高兴有机会从他的新朋友那里更多地了解这位欣喜若狂的圣人。他们的谈话无疑有助于穆勒自己关于这个主题的书的准备，罗摩克里希纳：他的生平和谚语，该书于1898年出版，在他去世前两年出版，至今仍在印刷。1900年，阿赫达南达在纽约举行的葬礼上向他的朋友致敬，以纪念穆勒，该仪式由哥伦比亚大学哲学和语言学系赞助。不幸的是，据我所知，没有关于他们谈话的记录，这些谈话肯定涉及许多话题，包括围绕诺托维奇关于失去的岁月的书的争议。虽然我无法证明这一点，但我怀疑与穆勒的会谈激发了阿赫达南达的兴趣，这演变成个人决心追根究底。可以肯定的是，穆勒会对争议的最终结果和对诺托维奇有利的解决方案感到震惊;我很快就会谈到。不幸的是，穆勒没有活着看到它。我已经提到了罗摩克里希纳的另一位精心挑选的弟子维韦卡南达，他比他的精神兄弟阿比达南达早几年来到西方。在这里，我将对他多说几句话。维韦卡南达是第一位访问美国和英国的印度瑜伽士和圣人。1893 年，他在芝加哥举行的世界宗教大会上声名狼藉，在那里他发表了激动人心的演讲，成为会议的热门话题。此后，他作为演讲者不断受到追捧。（克里斯托弗·伊舍伍德， 罗摩克里希纳和他的门徒， 1959， 西蒙和舒斯特， 第321页）随后，维韦卡南达在美国东部和中部旅行，教授瑜伽，建立冥想中心，写作，并向美国人介绍东方的精神实践。1896 年，他回到伦敦欢迎阿赫达南达的到来，他很快准备代表他接任。维韦卡南达随后返回印度。他于1902年去世。阿赫达南达在西方度过了接下来的四分之一个世纪：首先在伦敦和欧洲呆了十个月，然后在美国负责纽约吠檀多协会。他教课，讲课，并管理越来越多的瑜伽中心。他还访问了加拿大和墨西哥。有一种说法是，阿比达南达在美国比他的任何一个斯瓦米兄弟都更自在。这一时期最后一年的大部分时间都在西海岸度过，他的时间在旧金山和洛杉矶新成立的冥想中心之间平均分配。顺便说一句，我检查了一下，它们今天仍然存在。1921 年，Abhedananda 在东南亚的几个站点航行到加尔各答。在西方生活了这么多年后，他回到了家乡，这在印度引起了人们的喜爱。成群结队的祝福者在码头迎接他。但阿赫达南达在罗摩克里希纳传教团也面临着行政职责的压力，被迫将期待已久的拉达克之行推迟到第二年。直到 1922 年 7 月，56 岁的阿比达南达才终于踏上了穿越喜马拉雅山前往克什米尔北部的艰苦旅程。他先是坐火车，然后是公共汽车，然后步行越过 11,500 英尺高的 Zoji-la 山口，该山口将克什米尔郁郁葱葱的山谷与拉达克的高海拔沙漠月球景观隔开。斯瓦米详细记录了这次旅行和他在赫米斯修道院的时光，在那里他会见了首席喇嘛和常驻僧侣，并展示了诺托维奇检查的关于伊萨的手稿。在僧侣们的大力协助下，阿毗达南达研究了他们，并要求提供英文翻译。这已经完成了。后来，他的日记在瑜伽杂志上连载，一本关于他旅行的书由他的助手（陪同他）编辑，并于 1929 年以孟加拉语出版。不幸的是，阿赫达南达关于诺托维奇和逝去岁月的重要证词在西方被忽视了，这可能是因为直到1987年才有新书名《克什米尔和西藏之旅》的英文译本问世。值得一提的是，赫米斯寺院的僧侣们告诉阿赫达南达，正如他们之前告诉诺托维奇的那样，关于伊萨的内部手稿是保存在藏传佛教中心拉萨的原件的副本。原始手稿是用印度方言巴利语写成的，后来才被翻译成藏语。这并不奇怪，因为正如我们所知，佛教的发源地在印度北部的伽耶，也就是现在的比哈尔邦。因此，印度的图书馆很有可能保存着关于历史上的耶稣和逝去的岁月的额外证据。帕拉马汉萨·尤迦南达（Paramahansa Yogananda）自我实现团契的已故主席斯里·达亚·马塔（Sri Daya Mata）曾经讲述过她在1959年如何采访印度普里（Puri）的山卡拉查里亚（Shankaracharya）的斯里·巴拉蒂·克里希纳·蒂尔塔（Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha），后者告诉她，他在奥里萨邦普里（Puri）的贾甘纳斯神庙（Jagannath Temple）档案中看到了关于耶稣的古代记录。（Sri Daya Mata， Remembering Paramahansa Yogananda， Self Realize Fellowship， 1992， 第16页。甚至有可能其中一些证据已经到达西方，但被压制了。诺托维奇声称，梵蒂冈图书馆拥有至少63份来自埃及、中国、印度和阿拉伯的手稿，这些手稿都涉及逝去的岁月。假设这些材料存在，它们从未公开的可能原因是梵蒂冈的政策，即只允许思想正确的学者进入其与世隔绝的档案。我个人可以证明，2010 年在印度喀拉拉邦阿玛（“拥抱圣人”）的静修所阿姆里塔普里的图书馆里看到了数以万计的书籍和卷轴。毫无疑问，印度还有数百家规模相当或更大的图书馆。在1950年中国入侵西藏后，这些印度图书馆变得更加重要，导致全国各地的佛教寺院和图书馆遭到大规模破坏。当时没有被偷走的手稿几乎肯定会丢失。西藏文化的残余今天在拉达克幸存下来，因为这个崎岖的地区位于印度境内。西方才刚刚开始研究庞大的东方经文语料库。毕竟，自亨利·托马斯·科尔布鲁克 （Henry Thomas Colebrooke） 于 219 年出版第一部英文梵文语法和 1805 年《阿玛拉科萨吠陀》的第一部英文译本以来，才过去了。纵观历史，这不过是一眨眼的功夫。人类文明比我们大多数人敢于想象的要古老得多。在我的上一本书《深层历史与人类时代》（2022 年）中，我展示了人类文明的正确时间表至少是 120,000 年。这是基于英国骨洞令人难以置信的地层学;这是我们星球的全息记录。在1820年代首次调查，在洞穴中发现了五个地层，每个地层都有自己独特的化石组合。每一层的样本都经过同位素测年，这些层在气候上与四个已知的先前北极位置相关（总共五个，包括北极的当前极点）。航空航天工程师马克·卡洛托（Mark Carlotto）通过研究古代遗址的考古路线，发现了以前的极点位置。（马克·卡洛托，《亚特兰蒂斯之前》，1922年）我不想让我的读者对科学感到厌烦，但北极和南极的位置并不是我们星球的永久特征。当地壳移动时，两极也会移动多达 2,000 英里或更多。只是因为当今的科学如此混乱，查尔斯·哈普古德（Charles Hapgood）在1950年代首次提出的地壳位移理论的有效性尚未得到广泛认可。但那是另一回事了。（查尔斯·哈普古德，《地壳移动》，1958年，万神殿）。那么，我们如何解决道格拉斯 1896 年揭穿诺托维奇的评论与阿赫达南达对他的证实之间的看似矛盾呢？在我看来，这个案子是 FUBAR 的一个很好的例子，即 F*cked up 超出了所有的救赎，或者礼貌地说，西方的傲慢。自二十世纪初以来，西方人理所当然地认为道格拉斯的宣誓书解决了这个问题。这就是《纽约时报》在 1896 年 4 月 19 日的报道方式。案件已结案。后来，西方评论家也对阿赫达南达的叙述不屑一顾，因为斯瓦米没有从赫米斯回来时手头有确凿的证据，即既没有真正的佛教手稿，也没有照片。虽然我同意以照片形式提供确凿的证据是最好的结果，因为它会最终解决此事，但事实是，对道格拉斯的宣誓书也可以提出同样的反对意见。尽管道格拉斯在他的评论中发表了宣誓书的文本，但据我所知，没有人报告说实际看到了宣誓书，也没有人看到过宣誓书的照片。那么，我们怎么知道宣誓书的存在呢？这引发了一些令人不安的问题。道格拉斯是真正的骗子，而不是诺托维奇吗？我们知道道格拉斯与马克斯·穆勒有过通信，但没有证据表明两人见过面。因此，穆勒在争议中的作用不能被解释为对道格拉斯的响亮支持。已故的伊丽莎白·克莱尔·先知（Elizabeth Claire Prophet）在她的著作《耶稣失落的岁月》（The Lost Years of Jesus）中记载说，尽管她努力调查道格拉斯这个人，但她无法更多地了解他。她得出的结论是，我们对詹姆斯·阿奇博尔德·道格拉斯的了解都可以用一个简短的段落来概括。值得庆幸的是，维基百科提供了一些额外的碎片：道格拉斯出生于英国谢菲尔德，毕业于牛津大学。作家托比亚斯·丘顿（Tobias Churton）补充了另一个相关的花絮。道格拉斯似乎是阿莱斯特·克劳利（Aleister Crowley）的导师和朋友，阿莱斯特·克劳利（Aleister Crowley）是一位令人厌恶的神秘主义者，他创立了一种新的宗教Thelema（希腊语为“意志”），实际上只是最古老的宗教的一种新形式，即撒旦教。克劳利年轻时就放弃了基督教，并成为了一名黑魔法的实践者。这显然包括性狂欢、血祭以及使用咒语、仪式和咒语来召唤恶魔实体。克劳利在意大利的活动非常可耻，以至于贝尼托·墨索里尼于 1923 年将他驱逐出境。当我检查时，我被克劳利的 Thelema 符号与共济会的符号奇怪的相似之处所震惊。我怀疑这不仅仅是巧合。克劳利是否公开实践了泥瓦匠在三十三度分离后隐藏得很好的东西？我们知道，泥瓦匠们介绍了他们的三十三个层次的启蒙，以纪念与路西法一起被上帝抛弃的叛逆天使宿主的三分之一。
阿莱斯特·克劳利（Aleister Crowley）的母亲称他为“野兽”。那个辅导他并和他交朋友的人是否分享他对基督教的仇恨？如果是这样，所谓的宣誓书很可能是一个骗局，出于纯粹的恶意，故意阻碍对失去岁月的真相的追寻。至少，道格拉斯与克劳利的交往是一个巨大的危险信号，几乎不会激发信心。这就是为什么我详细地充实了阿比达南达：建立他无可挑剔的性格。当然，赫米斯的住持和僧侣在他到达修道院时很清楚，阿毗达南达是罗摩克里希纳的弟子，罗摩克里希纳的名声在他之前。这很容易解释斯瓦米的热烈欢迎。毕竟，阿毗达南达是一个志同道合的人，他自己也是一名僧侣，而且熟悉梵文和巴利文。我的直觉猜测（这只是一个猜测）是，当道格拉斯出现在赫米斯时，首席喇嘛可能听了他大约五分钟，足以破译这个人，然后给他看了门。也许是为了挽回面子，道格拉斯构思了欺诈性的宣誓书，并付钱给他的翻译。这将解释所有已知的事实，这就是我阅读它们的方式。其他人可以得出自己的结论。耶稣在被钉十字架后幸存下来了吗？1994年，已故印度学者菲达·M·哈斯南（Fida M. Hassnain）根据毕生的研究出版了一本关于历史上耶稣的最有趣的书。哈斯奈是穆斯林苏菲派，毕业于旁遮普大学，在他职业生涯的早期曾担任大律师。印度分治后，他成为了一名讲师，并最终在克什米尔斯利那加的斯里普拉塔普学院获得了历史和研究主席。1954年，他被任命为克什米尔国家档案馆馆长，直到退休。（Fida M. Hassnain， A Search for the Historical Jesus， 1994， Gateway Books）哈斯南对逝去的岁月特别感兴趣，多年来，他研究了梵文、藏文、阿拉伯文、波斯文和乌尔都语的资料，记录了耶稣在现在的伊朗和克什米尔的历史存在。西方人对他发现的古代文献不熟悉这一事实丝毫没有削弱它们的重要性。强烈推荐他的精彩著作。根据哈斯奈的说法，在波斯，耶稣被称为柚子阿萨夫。名字“柚子”是波斯语（和乌尔都语）的耶稣。（相当于阿拉姆语：“耶稣”）“Asaf”的意思是采集者。因此：耶稣是采集者（还是牧羊人？随着时间的流逝，哈斯奈开始相信《古兰经》关于钉十字架的说法基本上是正确的。耶稣不仅在十字架上的可怕磨难中幸存下来，而且完全康复，随后搬到克什米尔，在那里他继续传道并活到老年。我应该补充一点：他至今仍受到尊敬。当我考虑现有证据时，我惊讶地发现它似乎确实符合古兰经对事件的描述。钉十字架的死刑是一种缓慢而痛苦的死亡方式，通常持续数天。罗马人的意图是尽可能长时间地施加最大的痛苦和苦难。然而，根据福音书，耶稣被钉十字架发生在耶稣受难日这一天，从头到尾持续了不超过三到六个小时。犹太律法禁止在安息日钉十字架，因此，在各各他执行的刑罚必须在日落之前结束。他们不能在一夜之间一直持续到周六。这就是为什么罗马士兵打断了耶稣旁边被钉十字架的两个强盗的腿。断腿加速了他们的死亡，因为他们的腿不再能够支撑身体的重量。下垂的身体严重限制了他们的呼吸能力，导致窒息。然而，在耶稣的案例中却没有这样做。相反，根据约翰福音19：32-34，一个士兵用长矛刺穿了他的肋骨，流出血和水。如果士兵认为耶稣已经死了，他可能会避免长矛更具穿透力和致命的刺力。由于这些原因，耶稣在十字架上幸存下来的假设至少是可能的。在斯利那加的老城区，克什米尔是一座坟墓，当地人认为这是柚子阿萨夫的最后安息之地。它被称为 Rozabal，意思是“先知的坟墓”。1922 年，Abhedananda 在前往拉达克朝圣途中经过斯利那加时参观了这座神社。该结构在设计和外观上引人注目，尽管破旧且需要翻新。所有的窗户都覆盖着雕刻精美的木格子，每个格子都有一个木制十字架。里面是一个大型木制墓室，上面还覆盖着木格子。坟墓内有一个奇怪的石棺状物体和另一个雕刻的十字架。由于哈斯奈的官方职位，他被允许自由访问，因此能够进行调查。经过多次访问，他确定这座砖结构虽然不古老，但建在更古老的凿石基础上，其中大部分现在都在地下。在墓碑附近的坟墓里，哈斯南发现了一块覆盖着蜡的石板。显然，许多崇拜者将这块石头用作虔诚蜡烛的平台。当教授取下蜡时，他惊讶地发现石板上刻有两只脚的印记，每只脚都有明显的伤口痕迹。伤口的位置表明，左脚被放在右脚上，并用一根钉子刺穿了两只脚。简言之，先知被钉在十字架上，这种死亡方式在中亚历史上是未知的。
德国研究员霍尔格·克尔斯滕（Holger Kersten）也调查了该地点，并被允许进入坟墓，可能是因为他与哈斯奈（Hassnain）有联系。当我将克尔斯滕书中的照片与哈斯奈书中的照片进行比较时，我意识到乍一看似乎是石棺的东西只是一种木制的顶篷或覆盖物。克尔斯滕在他的书中报告说，先知的实际坟墓位于地板下的一个较旧的地下室中，呈东西走向，符合犹太人的习俗。相比之下，坟墓结构和坟墓是南北走向的，符合伊斯兰传统。鉴于印度教徒火化了他们的死者，很明显柚子阿萨夫既不是穆斯林、佛教徒也不是印度教徒。（Holger Kersten， Jesus Lived in India， 1986， Element Books）坟墓的保管人，一位老人提供的记录表明，几个世纪以来，一系列监护人一直照顾着该遗址，显然没有中断。哈斯南还发现了另一份古代文献，表明早在公元 116 年就建造了第一座保护坟墓的建筑。尽管该网站需要继续研究，但不幸的是，自 2001 年 9 月 11 日袭击事件以来，Rozabal 一直不对西方人开放。这是美犹太复国主义帝国主义者强加给世界的虚假反恐战争的多重寒蝉效应的又一个例子。马克·H·加夫尼（Mark H Gaffney）的第一本书是对以色列核武器计划的开创性研究，《迪莫纳：第三圣殿》（Dimona： The Third Temple，1989年）。他还研究了两本关于 2001 年 9 月 11 日袭击事件的书：《9/11 神秘飞机和美国的消失》（2008 年）和《黑色 9/11》（2016 年第 2 版）;2004年出版了一本关于早期基督教的书。见下文。他的最新著作是《深层历史与人类时代》（2022 年第 2 版）。可以通过 markhgaffney@earthlink.net 联系到Mark发表评论
Ever since the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche announced that “God is dead,” it has been fashionable to question the historical authenticity of Jesus. During the last century, numerous books addressed the issue. One of these, Caesar’s Messiah (2011), by Joseph Atwill, is representative and argues that the Flavian dynasty invented Christianity to create a population of docile subjects willing to “turn the other cheek” and passively accept Roman rule. The Flavians (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) dominated the political landscape of Rome between 69-96 CE, a time period that overlaps with the composition of the four gospels. I read Atwill’s book but will say no more about it. I have too much respect for my readers to waste their time eviscerating Atwill. That would be a pointless exercise. Readers deserve better.Even as skepticism about Jesus was gaining ground in the nineteenth century, new evidence emerged in support of the historical Jesus. In the 1880s, a Russian explorer, Nicolas Notovitch made an extensive journey through central Asia, and on his return to Europe went public with sensational claims that rocked the Christian world. Notovitch said he had visited a Buddhist monastery in northern Kashmir where he was shown ancient manuscripts about Jesus who was known as “Issa”. Incidentally, this just happens to be the name for Jesus in the Koran. Assuming Notovitch was telling the truth, this new evidence strongly supported the historical underpinnings of Christianity. But was he on the level?Notovitch was born in Crimea in 1858, the son of Jewish parents. However, in his younger years he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church after an extensive study of religion. On returning from Asia, he attempted to interest Vatican officials in a preliminary draft for a book he had written about his trip that included a translation of the alleged Buddhist manuscripts. However, in Rome, a cardinal whom Notovitch describes as “very close to the Holy Father” was less than enthusiastic, and replied: “What good would it do to print this? Nobody will attach to it any great importance and you will create a number of enemies.” The cardinal offered to reimburse him for his time and trouble; but Notovitch refused. In Paris, he also discussed a book project with Cardinal Rotelli who also tried to dissuade him.Although I was not surprised to learn about this resistance from the Roman Church, I was disappointed nonetheless. One might have hoped for a more open-minded attitude given that the four gospels have absolutely nothing to say about the so called “lost years,” the roughly 17-year period in the life of Jesus between the ages of thirteen and thirty when his public ministry began in Palestine. Over many centuries, the lost years have remained a historical void and a question mark. Surely the issue qualifies as a mystery, and one deserving of a serious investigation.As it happened, Notovitch was a very persistent individual and his book, The Life of Saint Issa eventually saw print, first in French, then in English under a different title, The Unknown Life of Christ. It was an immediate success. In 1894, the book went through eight editions in France. Three different English translations also appeared in the US, plus another in Britain the following year. Translations in German, Swedish, Italian and Spanish also followed. Over the course of his life, Notovitch published eleven books but is solely remembered for this one about the lost years.To say the book was controversial would be an understatement. Although some reviewers welcomed it while questioning the reliability of Buddhist sources about Christ, others were openly hostile. Writing in the North American Review in May 1894, Edward Everett Hale, a prominent Unitarian minister, not only doubted the existence of the alleged Buddhist source documents but even the existence of the Hemis monastery. Hale accused Notovitch of confabulating the whole thing. (The Unknown Life of Christ, North American Review, Vol 158, 1894, pp. 595-601)
Nor was he alone. That same year, renowned German Orientalist and Oxford professor Max Muller posted an acerbic review in the widely read English monthly magazine, The Nineteenth Century. Muller’s reputation as a scholar was considerable as he had published the first translation of the Rig Veda. In his review Muller accused Notovitch of fraud. Muller said he doubted the author had actually visited Hemis. But even if he had, the lamas there probably had duped him. Muller also cited Moravian missionaries and English officers who had visited Leh, the capital of Ladakh, where they made inquiries but found no evidence of Notovitch’s presence. (Max Muller, The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India, The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 36, October 1894, pp. 515-522.Responding in his own defense, Notovitch vigorously denied he had forged the alleged Buddhist manuscripts, claiming,“My imagination is not so fertile.” He encouraged others to visit Ladakh to verify the discovery for themselves, while recommending the kind of “eastern diplomacy” he had learned to employ on his travels, in other words, an indirect approach to build trust and allay local concerns about western motives. He explained why direct inquires were likely to fail: residents of northern Kashmir and Tibet had learned long ago for good reason to be wary of westerners. For centuries, Europeans had been looting the region’s treasures. Any westerner who showed up asking about a Buddhist manuscript was certain to evoke suspicion, and would likely be put off. Notovitch also volunteered the names of individuals who could verify his presence in Ladakh, including a European doctor who had treated him in Leh. Finally, he suggested that instead of attacking him, critics should focus on the Buddhist manuscripts and determine whether he had faithfully transcribed them. (For sources see Elizabeth Claire Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus, 1984, Summit University Press, chapter one)The controversy boiled over in 1896, when James Archibald Douglas, a former professor of English and history at Government College in Agra, India, posted an article in the same periodical that had published Muller’s review. It seems that Douglas had followed Notovitch’s advice. He made the long journey to the Hemis monastery where he met with the chief lama and presented him with ten questions. Douglas brought along an interpreter who also served as his witness. According to Douglas, the lama said he had been abbot of the monastery for fifteen years and categorically denied that any Russian had visited Hemis in the recent past. However, when shown a photo of Notovitch, the lama apparently recognized him and acknowledged that he might have mistaken Notovitch for an “English Sahib.” On this basis Douglas conceded that Notovitch might indeed have visited the monastery and might even have met the abbot. After making careful inquires, Douglas ascertained that the alleged doctor at Leh Hospital had indeed treated a Russian by the name of Notovitch. In this manner portions of Notovitch’s account were substantiated.Nonetheless, Douglas claimed in his review that he obtained an affidavit signed on June 3, 1895 by the chief lama emphatically denying the existence of the alleged manuscripts about Issa. In response to question number five, the lama said he had been a lama for forty-two years and was well acquainted with all of the Buddhist books and manuscripts, and had never heard of one that mentions the name “Issa.” Douglas’s review included the text of the affidavit and a brief endorsement by his interpreter and witness, Shahmwell Joldan, former postmaster of Ladakh. Douglas also attached a postscript by Max Muller who crowed that the affidavit was “not only a refutation but an annihilation.” (J. Douglas Archibald, The Chief Lama of Hemis on the Alleged “Unknown Life of Christ”, The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 39, April 1896, pp. 667-678.The review by Douglas seriously damaged Notovitch’s reputation. Book sales suffered; and that is where matters stood for many years. However, the controversy was far from over. The next chapter would involve Swami Abhedananda, one of the principal disciples of the Indian saint Ramakrishna, probably the most important spiritual figure of the 19th century (on earth). His life is thoroughly documented and the facts are astonishing. Abhedananda once described his teacher as follows:One of his disciples came to him and said: “Sir, people think you are gone mad, or you are in the habit of drinking.” He answered: “What people say is true. I am in the habit of drinking the wine of love. I do not drink any earthly drink….In the madhouse of the world, who is not mad? Some are mad for wives, some for husbands, and others for name or fame or position; show me one in this world who is not mad for anything at all. I am not mad for anything in this world but for God who is eternal and everlasting.” (Complete Works of Abhedananda, Vol. I, 1967, p. 497.But back to Abhedananda. Born in Calcutta in 1866, the son of a professor of English, Abhedananda was multi-lingual from a young age and a precocious scholar of literature from both East and West. In 1884, at the age of eighteen, he became a disciple of Ramakrishna. Subsequently, he spent years wandering the length and breadth of northern India, barefoot, with no money, visiting holy sites, seeking out the company of God-realized saints, enduring privations and practicing renunciation. During this period the Swami once made his home in a cave in the Himalayas near the source of the Ganges; and there passed three months. Plainly, he was no ordinary fellow. Wikipedia describes Abhedananda as “a forceful orator, prolific writer, yogi and intellectual with devotional fervor.”No sooner did Abhedananda arrive in London in 1896 than he learned, much to his dismay, that his fraternal superior, Swami Vivekananda, had arranged for him to deliver a lecture to an English audience about Vedanta, the Indian philosophy based on the Vedas. Abhedananda was aghast because he had no experience as a public speaker. In all of his life he had never addressed an audience, not even in India. Yet, according to various accounts, that evening Abhedananda pulled it off and delivered a brilliant lecture to a capacity crowd. Clearly it had been a test. Vivekananda was delighted and, soon after, departed England for India confident he was leaving Ramakrishna’s spiritual mission to the West in capable hands. Abhedananda was soon in demand as a speaker before assemblies and universities, first in Europe, then in the US. In the process he came to know many distinguished individuals, including none other than the redoubtable Max Muller. The two apparently met in London, became friends, and corresponded until Muller’s death.Both men were scholars and shared a common interest in Ramakrishna. Muller probably relished the opportunity to learn more about the ecstatic saint firsthand from his new acquaintance. Their conversations surely contributed to the preparation of Muller’s own book on the subject, Ramakrishna: His Life and Sayings, published in 1898, two years before his death, and still in print today. In 1900, Abhedananda paid tribute to his friend at a funereal ceremony in New York in honor of Muller sponsored by the philosophy and philology departments at Columbia University.Unfortunately, to my knowledge there is no record of their conversations which surely ranged over many topics, including the controversy surrounding Notovitch’s book about the lost years. Although I cannot prove it, I suspect the talks with Muller fired Abhedananda’s interest, which evolved into a personal determination to get to the bottom of the matter. It’s a safe bet Muller would have been shocked by the controversy’s eventual outcome and resolution in Notovitch’s favor; which I will get to shortly. Unfortunately, Muller did not live to see it.I have already mentioned Ramakrishna’s other hand-picked disciple, Vivekananda, who preceded his spiritual brother Abhedananda to the West by several years. Here, I will say a few more words about him. Vivekananda was the first Indian yogi and saint to visit the United States and Britain. He gained notoriety in Chicago in 1893 at the World Congress of Religions where he delivered a stirring address that was the hit of the conference. Thereafter, he was constantly in demand as a speaker. (Christopher Isherwood, Ramakrishna and His Disciples, 1959, Simon and Schuster, p. 321)Subsequently, Vivekananda traveled around the eastern and central US teaching yoga, founding meditation centers, writing, and generally introducing Americans to eastern spiritual practices. In 1896, he was back in London to welcome the arrival of Abhedananda whom he soon prepped to take over on his behalf. Vivekananda then returned to India. He passed away in 1902.Abhedananda spent the next quarter of a century in the West: first, ten months in London and Europe, then in the US where he took charge of the New York Vedanta Society. He taught classes, gave lectures and administered a growing number of yoga centers. He also visited Canada and Mexico. By one account, Abhedananda felt more at home in America than any of his swami brothers. Most of the last year of this period was spent on the West coast, his time about equally divided between newly established meditation centers in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Incidentally, I checked and both of them still exist today. In 1921, Abhedananda sailed for Calcutta by way of several stops in Southeast Asia.His arrival home after so many years in the West was celebrated news across India. Crowds of well wishers greeted him at the dock. But Abhedananda also faced a press of administrative duties at the Ramakrishna mission and was compelled to postpone the long anticipated trip to Ladakh until the following year. It was not until July 1922, at the age of fifty-six, that Abhedananda finally set out on the arduous journey across the Himalayas to northern Kashmir. He went firstly by train, then bus, then on foot over the 11,500 foot-high Zoji-la pass that separates the lush vale of Kashmir from the high elevation desert moonscape of Ladakh. The swami kept a detailed diary of the trip and his time at the Hemis monastery where he met the chief lama and the resident monks and was shown the very same manuscripts about Issa examined by Notovitch. Ably assisted by the monks, Abhedananda studied them and requested English translations. This was done.Later, his diary was serialized in a yoga journal, and a book about his trip was edited by his assistant (who had accompanied him) and published in 1929 in Bengali. Unfortunately, Abhedananda’s important testimony about Notovitch and the lost years has been neglected in the West, possibly because an English translation under a new title, Journey into Kashmir and Tibet, did not become available until 1987.It is noteworthy that the monks at the Hemis monastery told Abhedananda, as they previously had informed Notovitch, that the in-house manuscripts about Issa were copies of originals kept at Lhasa, center of Tibetan Buddhism. The original manuscripts had been composed in Pali, an Indian dialect, and only later translated into Tibetan. This is not surprising because, as we know, the birthplace of Buddhism was in northern India at Gaya, what is now Bihar province.So, it is quite possible that the libraries of India hold additional evidence about the historical Jesus and the lost years. Sri Daya Mata, the late President of Paramahansa Yogananda’s Self-Realization Fellowship, once related how in 1959 she interviewed Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the Shankaracharya of Puri, India, who told her he had seen ancient records about Jesus in the Jagannath Temple archives at Puri, in Orissa province. (Sri Daya Mata, Remembering Paramahansa Yogananda, Self Realization Fellowship, 1992, p. 16.)It is even possible that some of this evidence already reached the West, but was suppressed. Notovitch claimed that the Vatican library is in possession of at least sixty-three manuscripts from Egypt, China, India and Arabia, in different languages, all referencing the lost years. Assuming these materials exist, the likely reason they have never been made public is the Vatican policy of admitting only right-thinking scholars to its cloistered archives.I can personally attest to having seen tens of thousands of books and scrolls in the library at Amritapuri, the ashram of Amma (the “hugging saint”) in Kerala, India in 2010. Doubtless, there are hundreds of other libraries in India of comparable size or larger. These Indian libraries became even more important after the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950 that resulted in the wholesale destruction of Buddhist monasteries and libraries across the country. Manuscripts that were not squirreled away at that time were almost certainly lost. A remnant of Tibetan culture survives today in Ladakh because the rugged region lies within the borders of India.The West has barely begun to investigate the vast corpus of eastern scriptures. After all, it has only been 219 years since Henry Thomas Colebrooke published the first Sanskrit grammar in English, and the first English translation of the Amarakosa Veda in 1805. Over the sweep of history this is but the blink of an eye. Human civilization is vastly older than most of us have dared to imagine. In my last book, Deep History and the Ages of Man (2022) I showed that the proper timeline for human civilization is at least 120,000 years. This is based on the incredible stratigraphy of the bone caves of Britain; which is a holographic record of our planet. First investigated in the 1820s, five stratigraphic layers have been identified in the caves, each with its own unique assemblage of fossils. Samples from each layer have been isotopically dated, and the layers correlate climatically with four known previous north pole positions (for a total of five, including the current pole in the Arctic). Aerospace engineer Mark Carlotto found the former pole positions by studying the archeological alignments of ancient sites. (Mark Carlotto, Before Atlantis, 1922) I hate to disabuse my readers about science but the position of the north and south poles is not a permanent feature of our planet. When the crust of the earth shifts, the poles also move by as much as 2,000 miles or more. It is only because present day science is in such disarray that the validity of Charles Hapgood’s theory of crustal displacement, first articulated in the 1950s, has not yet been widely recognized. But that is another story. (Charles Hapgood, Earth’s Shifting Crust, 1958, Pantheon).So, how do we resolve the seeming contradiction between Douglas’s 1896 review debunking Notovitch and Abhedananda’s corroboration of him? In my opinion the case is a good example of FUBAR, i.e., F*cked up beyond all redemption or, to be polite, western hubris. Since the turn of the twentieth century, westerners have taken it for granted that Douglas’s affidavit settled the matter. That is how the New York Times reported it on April 19, 1896. Case closed. Later, western critics also discounted Abhedananda’s account because the swami did not return from Hemis with hard evidence in hand, i.e., neither a genuine Buddhist manuscript nor a photo. While I agree that hard evidence in the form of photos would have been the best possible outcome because it would have conclusively settled the matter, the fact is, the very same objection can be raised about Douglas’s affidavit. Although Douglas published the text of it in his review, insofar as I am aware, no one has ever reported actually seeing the affidavit, nor a photo of it. So, how do we know the affidavit even existed? This raises a number of disturbing questions. Was Douglas the actual hoaxer, not Notovitch?We know Douglas corresponded with Max Muller, but there is no evidence the two men ever met. So, Muller’s part in the controversy cannot be construed as a ringing endorsement of Douglas. The late Elizabeth Claire Prophet reports in her book, The Lost Years of Jesus, that although she strenuously investigated Douglas-the-man she was unable to learn anything more about him. She concluded that everything we know about James Archibald Douglas can be summarized in one slim paragraph. Thankfully, Wikipedia offers a few additional scraps: Douglas was born in Sheffield, England and graduated from Oxford. The writer Tobias Churton adds another relevant tidbit. It seems Douglas was tutor and friend to Aleister Crowley, the reprobate occultist who founded a new religion, Thelema (Greek for “the will”), actually just a new form of the oldest religion of them all, i.e. Satanism. Crowley repudiated Christianity as a young man and became a practitioner of the dark arts. This apparently included sex orgies, blood sacrifices, and the use of spells, ceremonies and incantations to summon demonic entities. Crowley’s activities in Italy were sufficiently scandalous that Benito Mussolini had him deported in 1923. When I checked, I was struck by the curious resemblance of Crowley’s symbol for Thelema with that of freemasonry. I suspect this is more than a coincidence. Did Crowley openly practice what the masons keep well concealed behind thirty-three degrees of separation? We know the masons introduced their thirty-three levels of initiation in honor of the rebellious one-third of the angelic host cast down by God along with Lucifer.
Aleister Crowley’s own mother referred to him as “the beast.” Did the man who tutored and befriended him share his hatred for Christianity? If so, the alleged affidavit was probably a sham, a deliberate attempt to obstruct the search for the truth about the lost years, done out of sheer malice. At very least, Douglas’s association with Crowley is a huge red flag that hardly inspires confidence.This is why I fleshed out Abhedananda in some detail: to establish his unimpeachable character. Surely the abbot and monks at Hemis were well aware at the time of his arrival at the monastery that Abhedananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna whose reputation preceded him. This easily explains the swami’s warm welcome. Abhedananda was a kindred spirit, after all, a monk himself and one familiar with both Sanskrit and Pali. My intuitive guess (and it is only a guess) is that when Douglas showed up at Hemis, the chief lama probably listened to him for about five minutes, enough to decipher the man, then showed him the door. Perhaps to save face, Douglas conceived the fraudulent affidavit and paid his interpreter to go along. This would explain all of the known facts and is how I read them. Others can draw their own conclusions.Did Jesus survive the crucifixion?In 1994, the late Indian scholar Fida M. Hassnain published a most interesting book about the historical Jesus based on a lifetime of research. Hassnain, a Muslim Sufi, graduated from the University of Punjab and early in his career served as a barrister. After the partition of India, he became a lecturer and eventually gained the chair of history and research at Sri Pratap College in Srinagar, Kashmir. In 1954, he was named director of the Kashmir state archives, a post he held until his retirement. (Fida M. Hassnain, A Search for the Historical Jesus, 1994, Gateway Books)Hassnain was especially interested in the lost years, and over the course of many years examining Sanskrit, Tibetan, Arabic, Persian and Urdu sources was able to document the historic presence of Jesus in what is now Iran and Kashmir. The fact that westerners are unfamiliar with the ancient texts he discovered in no way diminishes their importance. His splendid book is highly recommended.According to Hassnain, in Persia Jesus was known as Yuzu Asaf. The first name “Yuzu” is Persian (and Urdu) for Jesus. (The Aramaic equivalent: “Jesu”) “Asaf” means gatherer. Hence: Jesus the gatherer (or shepherd?). In time, Hassnain came to believe that the Koran is basically correct about the crucifixion. Jesus not only survived the gruesome ordeal on the cross but fully recovered and subsequently relocated to Kashmir, where he continued to preach and lived to a ripe old age. I should add: and where he is still revered to this day.As I considered the available evidence, I was surprised to find that it does appear to accord with the Koran’s version of events. Capital punishment by crucifixion was a slow and agonizing mode of death that normally lasted for days. The Roman intent was to inflict the maximum amount of pain and suffering for as long as possible. Yet, according to the gospels the crucifixion of Jesus occurred on a single day, Good Friday, and from start to finish lasted no more than three to six hours. Jewish law forbade crucifixions on the sabbath, and for this reason the sentences being carried out on Golgotha had to be terminated before sunset. They could not continue overnight and into Saturday. This is why the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two thieves being crucified next to Jesus. Breaking the legs hastened their death because their legs were no longer able to support the weight of their bodies. The sagging bodies seriously constrained their ability to breathe, resulting in suffocation. This was not done in the case of Jesus, however. Instead, according to John 19: 32-34, a soldier pierced his side with a lance, drawing forth blood and water. If the soldier thought Jesus had already expired, he might have refrained from a more penetrating and fatal thrust of the lance. For these reasons, the hypothesis that Jesus survived the crucifixion is at least possible.In the old part of Srinagar, Kashmir is a tomb that locals believe to be the final resting place of Yuzu Asaf. It is known as Rozabal, which means “the prophet’s tomb.”Abhedananda actually visited the shrine in 1922 while passing through Srinagar on his pilgrimage to Ladakh. The structure is striking in design and appearance, though run down and in need of renovation. All of the windows are covered with intricately carved wooden lattices, each distinguished by a wooden cross. Inside is a large wooden sepulchre chamber also covered with a wooden lattice. Within the sepulchre is a strange sarcophagus-like object and another carved cross.Due to Hassnain’s official position he was granted free access and so was able to investigate. After many visits, he determined that the brick structure, though not ancient, had been built atop a much older foundation of chiseled stonework, most of which is now below ground. Inside the sepulchre near the gravestone Hassnain found a stone slab covered with wax. Evidently, many worshippers had used the stone as a platform for devotional candles. When the professor removed the wax he was amazed to discover the impression of two feet carved in the slab, each with an obvious wound mark. The location of the wounds suggests that the left foot had been placed over the right and that a single nail had been used to pierce both feet. In short, the prophet had been crucified, a mode of death historically unknown in central Asia.
A German researcher, Holger Kersten, also investigated the site and was also allowed into the sepulchre, probably because of his association with Hassnain. When I compared the photos in Kersten’s book with those in Hassnain’s book, I realized that what appears at first glance to be a sarcophagus is merely a kind of wooden canopy or covering. In his book, Kersten reports that the actual grave of the prophet lies in an older crypt below the floor and is oriented east-west, consistent with Jewish custom. By contrast, the tomb structure and sepulchre are oriented north-south in accord with Islamic tradition. Given that Hindus cremate their dead, it is evident that Yuzu Asaf was neither Muslim, Buddhist, nor Hindu. (Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India, 1986, Element Books)Records produced by the tomb’s custodian, an elderly man, indicate that a series of guardians cared for the site over the centuries, apparently without interruption. Hassnain also discovered another ancient document indicating that the first structure to protect the tomb was built as early as 116 CE. Although the site calls for continuing research, unfortunately, Rozabal has been closed to westerners since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is yet another example of the manifold chilling effects of the fake war on terror imposed on the world by US Zionist imperialists.Mark H Gaffney’s first book was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, Dimona: The Third Temple (1989). He also researched two books about the September 11, 2001 attacks: The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008), and Black 9/11 (2nd ed. 2016); and a book about early Christianity released in 2004. See below. His latest is Deep History and the Ages of Man (2nd ed. 2022). Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net
页:
[1]